From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ferruh Yigit Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 00/17] Wind River Systems AVP PMD vs virtio? Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 11:29:12 +0000 Message-ID: <127aa10b-13d3-0265-dcb5-0639c60898e8@intel.com> References: <1488414008-162839-1-git-send-email-allain.legacy@windriver.com> <1489432593-32390-1-git-send-email-allain.legacy@windriver.com> <4b3a0ff4-3d19-8e4b-0cbf-2a08e6433285@6wind.com> <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA7231E927@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" , "Jolliffe, Ian (Wind River)" , "Richardson, Bruce" , "Mcnamara, John" , "Wiles, Keith" , "thomas.monjalon@6wind.com" , "jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com" , "stephen@networkplumber.org" , "3chas3@gmail.com" <3chas3@gmail.com> To: "O'Driscoll, Tim" , Vincent JARDIN , "Legacy, Allain (Wind River)" Return-path: Received: from mga04.intel.com (mga04.intel.com [192.55.52.120]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 275F01396 for ; Wed, 15 Mar 2017 12:29:16 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA7231E927@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On 3/15/2017 4:10 AM, O'Driscoll, Tim wrote: > I've included a couple of specific comments inline below, and a general comment here. > > We have somebody proposing to add a new driver to DPDK. It's standalone and doesn't affect any of the core libraries. > They're willing to maintain the driver and have included a patch to update the maintainers file. +1 The scope of the patch is limited to PMD. As long as it is maintained, it is good to have alternative approaches. > They've also included the relevant documentation changes. I haven't seen any negative comment on the patches themselves except for a request from John McNamara for an update to the Release Notes that was addressed in a later version. I think we should be welcoming this into DPDK rather than questioning/rejecting it. > > I'd suggest that this is a good topic for the next Tech Board meeting. <...> >> To make it short, using ivshmem, you keep people unfocused from virtio. > > I agree with the desire to have virtio as the preferred solution. I think the way to do that is by promoting the benefits of a standard solution and continually improving the performance, as we are doing. I don't think it's a reason to reject alternative solutions though. > <...> >> so, still an nack because: >> - no performance data of avp vs virtio, > > I don't think it should be a requirement for Allain to provide performance data in order to justify getting this accepted into DPDK. Keith pointed out in a previous comment on this patch set that even if performance is the same as virtio, there might still be other reasons why people would want to use it. > >> - 2013 is gone, >> - it unfocuses from virtio. >> >> Best regards, >> Vincent