[dpdk-dev] DPDK and forked processes

[Eads, Gage]

Agreed on both points. I'll submit a patchset to remove the l2fwd_fork example and its user-guide, so it doesn't appear that DPDK supports this model. If anyone on the ML disagrees, they can respond here or on the patch thread.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen Hemminger [mailto:stephen at networkplumber.org]
> Sent: Friday, July 27, 2018 11:00 AM
> To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas at monjalon.net>
> Cc: Eads, Gage <gage.eads at intel.com>; Burakov, Anatoly
> <anatoly.burakov at intel.com>; dev at dpdk.org; Richardson, Bruce
> <bruce.richardson at intel.com>; jerin.jacob at caviumnetworks.com; Yigit, Ferruh
> <ferruh.yigit at intel.com>; hemant.agrawal at nxp.com; Ananyev, Konstantin
> <konstantin.ananyev at intel.com>; Olivier Matz <olivier.matz at 6wind.com>
> Subject: Re: DPDK and forked processes
> 
> On Fri, 27 Jul 2018 17:03:48 +0200
> Thomas Monjalon <thomas at monjalon.net> wrote:
> 
> > 27/07/2018 15:46, Eads, Gage:
> > > As this discussion has broad implications for DPDK, is it a good candidate for
> a techboard meeting topic?
> >
> > We can discuss it in techboard, but usually we prefer discussing
> > topics whose resolution is not clear.
> > In this case, I think everybody agree with Anatoly, isn't it?
> 
> I would prefer that decisions like this be done by rough consensus on the mailing
> list.
> 
> As far as applications messing with internals, in reality any application can
> change anything. Just don't come crying to DPDK community for help.
>