From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============5544562551760941597=="
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Walker, Benjamin <benjamin.walker at intel.com>
Subject: Re: [SPDK] vpp 18.10 with spdk
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2019 19:07:27 +0000
Message-ID: <2bad342c377f3f619e72c36ddd93a487027d8412.camel@intel.com>
In-Reply-To: f166a0e7f81ca757baad1e2ca04a4fd8@mail.gmail.com
List-ID: <spdk@lists.01.org>
To: spdk@lists.01.org

--===============5544562551760941597==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, 2019-03-13 at 12:09 -0700, Jonathan Richardson wrote:
> Hi,
> =

> =

> =

> Just wondering if there is any plan to support a newer version of vpp. I
> want to use vpp 18.10 so will upgrade the spdk code. It looks like the vpp
> version tags are similar to SPDK. Is there any reason why the vpp support
> isn=E2=80=99t newer? If not I=E2=80=99ll upstream my changes when done. D=
o you have any
> guidelines on backwards compatibility should the version used by spdk be
> made configurable?
> =


The only reason VPP hasn't been upgraded is that no one has done it yet. If
you'd like to tackle the upgrade, please do submit the patches. That would =
be
great!

In general SPDK does have a number of backward compatibility requirements.
However, for VPP specifically, I don't see any downside to just doing a
wholesale upgrade this time. I don't think you need to maintain backward
compatibility with an older VPP.

Thanks,
Ben

> =

> =

> Thanks,
> =

> Jon
> _______________________________________________
> SPDK mailing list
> SPDK(a)lists.01.org
> https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/spdk


--===============5544562551760941597==--