<div dir="auto">Right, but performance and reliability are both important. While DPDK rightly prioritizes performance, some level of reliability should still be ensured, especially to catch known issues that could lead to instability.</div><br><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Jul 22, 2025, 22:38 Stephen Hemminger <<a href="mailto:stephen@networkplumber.org">stephen@networkplumber.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">On Tue, 22 Jul 2025 22:04:32 +0500<br>
Khadem Ullah <<a href="mailto:14pwcse1224@uetpeshawar.edu.pk" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">14pwcse1224@uetpeshawar.edu.pk</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
> Agree, but I think it's also a good practice to guard against known cases<br>
> that are prone to crashes.<br>
<br>
<br>
Right but DPDK chooses performance over API safety.<br>
For example rx/tx burst doesn't check args.<br>
<br>
The point is that as a library, if application is doing something wrong<br>
returning error doesn't always help.<br>
</blockquote></div>