[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 00/17] Wind River Systems AVP PMD vs virtio? - ivshmem is back
hobywank at hotmail.com
Mon Mar 20 23:30:59 CET 2017
If AVP was an upstream device of Qemu or Linux kernel that would be very natural to have a DPDK PMD (setting aside my comments on a preferred single virtual device).
As far as I know this is not the case.
Because of that, one could see the AVP PMD as a way to leverage open source to promote proprietary technology. That is the heart of the problem with the proposal.
So I would recommend waiting for an upstream qemu support to consider AVP in DPDK .
From: dev <dev-bounces at dpdk.org> on behalf of Michael S. Tsirkin <mst at redhat.com>
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2017 2:52:06 PM
To: Thomas Monjalon
Cc: Wiles, Keith; Jason Wang; Vincent JARDIN; Stephen Hemminger; O'Driscoll, Tim; Legacy, Allain (Wind River); Yigit, Ferruh; dev at dpdk.org; Jolliffe, Ian (Wind River); Markus Armbruster; Stefan Hajnoczi
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 00/17] Wind River Systems AVP PMD vs virtio? - ivshmem is back
On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 09:48:38AM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> I think there is one interesting technological point in this thread.
> We are discussing about IVSHMEM but its support by Qemu is confused.
> This feature is not in the MAINTAINERS file of Qemu.
> Please Qemu maintainers, what is the future of IVSHMEM?
You should try asking this question on the qemu mailing list. Looking at
archives, Jan Kiszka was the last one who expressed some interest in
More information about the dev