From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/6] Virtio-net PMD: QEMU QTest extension
	for container
Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2016 15:51:15 +0200
Message-ID: <81387447.FL6Ak3iYVL@xps13>
References: <1457512409-24403-12-git-send-email-mukawa@igel.co.jp>
 <687ff542-f97b-8706-5f96-0727dfcdf174@igel.co.jp>
 <20160603041748.GW10038@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Cc: Tetsuya Mukawa <mukawa@igel.co.jp>, dev@dpdk.org, jianfeng.tan@intel.com,
 huawei.xie@intel.com, David Marchand <david.marchand@6wind.com>
To: Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mail-wm0-f49.google.com (mail-wm0-f49.google.com [74.125.82.49])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 303EB376D
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Mon,  6 Jun 2016 11:17:16 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by mail-wm0-f49.google.com with SMTP id n184so82151338wmn.1
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Mon, 06 Jun 2016 02:17:16 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20160603041748.GW10038@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com>
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>

2016-06-03 12:17, Yuanhan Liu:
> 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.

+1

> 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.

+1