From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Graf Subject: Re: [ovs-dev] [PATCH RFC] dpif-netdev: Add support Intel DPDK based ports. Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 18:14:01 +0100 Message-ID: <52E936D9.4010207@redhat.com> References: <1390873715-26714-1-git-send-email-pshelar@nicira.com> <52E7D13B.9020404@redhat.com> <52E8B88A.1070104@redhat.com> <52E8D772.9070302@6wind.com> <52E8E2AB.1080600@redhat.com> <52E92DA6.9070704@6wind.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "dev-yBygre7rU0TnMu66kgdUjQ@public.gmane.org" , dev-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org, Gerald Rogers , dpdk-ovs-y27Ovi1pjclAfugRpC6u6w@public.gmane.org To: Vincent JARDIN Return-path: In-Reply-To: <52E92DA6.9070704-pdR9zngts4EAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org Sender: "dev" On 01/29/2014 05:34 PM, Vincent JARDIN wrote: > Thomas, > > First and easy answer: it is open source, so anyone can recompile. So, > what's the issue? I'm talking from a pure distribution perspective here: Requiring to recompile all DPDK based applications to distribute a bugfix or to add support for a new PMD is not ideal. So ideally OVS would have the possibility to link against the shared library long term. > I get lost: do you mean ABI + API toward the PMDs or towards the > applications using the librte ? Towards the PMDs is more straight forward at first so it seems logical to focus on that first. A stable API and ABI for librte seems required as well long term as DPDK does offer shared libraries but I realize that this is a stretch goal in the initial phase.