[dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/3] kcp: add kernel control path kernel module

Jay Rolette rolette at infiniteio.com
Wed Mar 2 23:18:38 CET 2016


On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 8:02 PM, Stephen Hemminger <
stephen at networkplumber.org> wrote:

> On Mon, 29 Feb 2016 08:33:25 -0600
> Jay Rolette <rolette at infiniteio.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 5:06 AM, Thomas Monjalon <
> thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com>
> > 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.
> > >
> >
> > I know you guys are very interested in getting rid of the out-of-tree
> > drivers, but please do not block incremental improvements to DPDK in the
> > meantime. Ferruh's patch improves the usability of KNI. Don't throw out
> > good and useful enhancements just because it isn't where you want to be
> in
> > the end.
> >
> > I'd like to see these be merged.
> >
> > Jay
>
> The code is really not ready. I am okay with cooperative development
> but the current code needs to go into a staging type tree.
> No compatibility, no ABI guarantees, more of an RFC.
> Don't want vendors building products with it then screaming when it
> gets rebuilt/reworked/scrapped.
>

That's fair. To be clear, it wasn't my intent for code that wasn't baked
yet to be merged.

The main point of my comment was that I think it is important not to halt
incremental improvements to existing capabilities (KNI in this case) just
because there are philosophical or directional changes that the community
would like to make longer-term.

Bird in the hand vs. two in the bush...

Jay


More information about the dev mailing list