From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jiri Pirko Subject: Re: [patch net-next RFC v2 0/6] introduce infrastructure for support of switch chip datapath Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 13:57:11 +0100 Message-ID: <20140327125711.GL2845@minipsycho.orion> References: <1395851472-10524-1-git-send-email-jiri@resnulli.us> <53334A3F.6020105@mojatatu.com> <20140327072107.GC2845@minipsycho.orion> <5333FD12.9060404@mojatatu.com> <20140327110223.GA1615@casper.infradead.org> <533408C0.8000608@mojatatu.com> <20140327120012.GA13573@casper.infradead.org> <53341A63.3000004@mojatatu.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Thomas Graf , netdev@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, nhorman@tuxdriver.com, andy@greyhouse.net, dborkman@redhat.com, ogerlitz@mellanox.com, jesse@nicira.com, pshelar@nicira.com, azhou@nicira.com, ben@decadent.org.uk, stephen@networkplumber.org, jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com, vyasevic@redhat.com, xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com, john.r.fastabend@intel.com, edumazet@google.com, sfeldma@cumulusnetworks.com, f.fainelli@gmail.com, roopa@cumulusnetworks.com, linville@tuxdriver.com, dev@openvswitch.org To: Jamal Hadi Salim Return-path: Received: from mail-ee0-f45.google.com ([74.125.83.45]:64392 "EHLO mail-ee0-f45.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752211AbaC0M5P (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Mar 2014 08:57:15 -0400 Received: by mail-ee0-f45.google.com with SMTP id d17so2828030eek.18 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2014 05:57:13 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <53341A63.3000004@mojatatu.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 01:32:35PM CET, jhs@mojatatu.com wrote: >On 03/27/14 08:00, Thomas Graf wrote: > >>It seems like we reached pretty good consensus on the model. What >>remaining issues do you see with the port model proposed in v2? >> > >Are we really following the same thread? >I dont see any rallying behind Jiri's approach from the >other folks who have their own code and way of approaching things. >I am hoping we dont continue with the split that is there >already. It is not a split. It is just a completion of a model. Adding missing parts. At least I see it that way. > >cheers, >jamal