[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/5] mem: add --single-file to create single mem-backed file

[Traynor, Kevin]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com]
> Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 2:45 PM
> To: Traynor, Kevin <kevin.traynor at intel.com>
> Cc: dev at dpdk.org; nakajima.yoshihiro at lab.ntt.co.jp; mst at redhat.com;
> p.fedin at samsung.com; ann.zhuangyanying at huawei.com
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/5] mem: add --single-file to create
> single mem-backed file
> 
> 2016-03-14 13:53, Traynor, Kevin:
> > From: Thomas Monjalon
> > > 2016-03-08 17:04, Yuanhan Liu:
> > > > On Tue, Mar 08, 2016 at 10:49:30AM +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> > > > > On 03/07/2016 03:13 PM, Yuanhan Liu wrote:
> > > > > Note that SINGLE_FILE_SEGMENTS is a nasty hack that only the IVSHMEM
> > > config
> > > > > uses, getting rid of it (by replacing with a runtime switch) would be
> > > great.
> > > >
> > > > Can't agree more.
> > >
> > > +1
> > >
> > > > > OTOH IVSHMEM itself seems to have fallen out of the fashion since the
> > > memnic
> > > > > driver is unmaintained and broken since dpdk 2.0... CC'ing the
> IVSHMEM
> > > > > maintainer in case he has thoughts on this.
> > >
> > > The ivshmem config was not used for memnic which was using ivshmem only
> for
> > > data path.
> > > CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_IVSHMEM and CONFIG_RTE_EAL_SINGLE_FILE_SEGMENTS are
> more
> > > about full memory sharing.
> > > I have the feeling it could be dropped.
> > > It there are some users, I'd like to see a justification and a rework to
> > > remove these build options.
> >
> > Just to clarify - is this suggesting the removal of the IVSHMEM library
> itself,
> > or just some of the config options?
> 
> I have no strong opinion about the library.
> About the config options, yes they should be removed. Note that they are not
> documented, so we don't really know the motivation to have them.

ok, thanks for clarifying. As there's no imminent plans to remove the library,
I won't cross post. 

> 
> > The reason I ask is that although we don't currently use it in OVS with
> DPDK,
> > I've seen at least one person using it in conjunction with the ring
> interface.
> > There may be others, so I want to cross-post if there's a deprecation
> discussion.
> 
> Thank you for sharing.