From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/6] Virtio-net PMD: QEMU QTest extension
	for container
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 12:17:48 +0800
Message-ID: <20160603041748.GW10038@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com>
References: <1457512409-24403-12-git-send-email-mukawa@igel.co.jp>
 <1464838185-21751-1-git-send-email-mukawa@igel.co.jp>
 <20160602073105.GS10038@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com>
 <687ff542-f97b-8706-5f96-0727dfcdf174@igel.co.jp>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: dev@dpdk.org, jianfeng.tan@intel.com, huawei.xie@intel.com,
 Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>,
 David Marchand <david.marchand@6wind.com>
To: Tetsuya Mukawa <mukawa@igel.co.jp>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mga01.intel.com (mga01.intel.com [192.55.52.88])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B038156B7
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri,  3 Jun 2016 06:17:37 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <687ff542-f97b-8706-5f96-0727dfcdf174@igel.co.jp>
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 06:30:18PM +0900, Tetsuya Mukawa wrote:
> Hi Yuanhan,
> 
> On 2016/06/02 16:31, Yuanhan Liu wrote:
> > But still, I'd ask do we really need 2 virtio for container solutions?
> 
> I appreciate your comments.

No, I appreciate your effort for contributing to DPDK! vhost-pmd stuff
is just brilliant!

> Let me have time to discuss it with our team.

I'm wondering could we have one solution only. IMO, the drawback of
having two (quite different) solutions might outweighs the benefit
it takes. Say, it might just confuse user.

OTOH, I'm wondering could you adapt to Jianfeng's solution? If not,
what's the missing parts, and could we fix it? I'm thinking having
one unified solution will keep ours energy/focus on one thing, making
it better and better! Having two just splits the energy; it also
introduces extra burden for maintaining.

	--yliu