From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Panu Matilainen <pmatilai@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] kcp: add kernel control path kernel
	module
Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 17:19:42 +0200
Message-ID: <56D4618E.4090101@redhat.com>
References: <1453911849-16562-1-git-send-email-ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
 <56D420E5.9010802@intel.com> <56D42462.3020905@scylladb.com>
 <1945473.Tiatd2m80T@xps13> <56D42CE5.5000901@intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: dev@dpdk.org, Avi Kivity <avi@scylladb.com>
To: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>,
 Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 916CD2C52
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Mon, 29 Feb 2016 16:19:45 +0100 (CET)
In-Reply-To: <56D42CE5.5000901@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>

On 02/29/2016 01:35 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> On 2/29/2016 11:06 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I totally agree with Avi's comments.
>> This topic is really important for the future of DPDK.
>> So I think we must give some time to continue the discussion
>> and have netdev involved in the choices done.
>> As a consequence, these series should not be merged in the release 16.04.
>> Thanks for continuing the work.
>>
> Hi Thomas,
>
> It is great to have some discussion and feedbacks.
> But I doubt not merging in this release will help to have more discussion.
>
> It is better to have them in this release and let people experiment it,
> this gives more chance to better discussion.
>
> These features are replacement of KNI, and KNI is not intended to be
> removed in this release, so who are using KNI as solution can continue
> to use KNI and can test KCP/KDP, so that we can get more feedbacks.

So make the work available from a separate git repo and make it easy for 
people to experiment with it. Code doesn't have to be in a release for 
the sake of experimenting, and removing code is much harder than not 
adding it in the first place, witness KNI.

	- Panu -