> -----Original Message----- > From: Neil Horman [mailto:nhorman at tuxdriver.com] > Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2014 6:14 PM > To: Richardson, Bruce > Cc: dev at dpdk.org > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/4] New library: rte_distributor > > Ah, my bad, I was looking at the API as a way of multiplexing locally > generated > data to multiple workers for transmission over multiple > On Tue, May 20, > 2014 at 11:02:15AM +0000, Richardson, Bruce wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Neil Horman [mailto:nhorman at tuxdriver.com] > > > Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2014 11:39 AM > > > To: Richardson, Bruce > > > Cc: dev at dpdk.org > > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/4] New library: rte_distributor > > > > > > > > > > This sounds an awful lot like the team and bonding drivers. Why implement > this > > > as a separate application accessible api, rather than a stacked PMD? If > > > you > do > > > the latter then existing applications could concievably change their > > > configurations to use this technology and gain the benefit of load > distribution > > > without having to alter the application to use a new api. > > > > > > > I'm not sure I see the similarity with the bonded driver, which merges > > multiple > ports into a single logical port, i.e. you pull packets from a single source > which is > actually pull packets from possibly multiple sources behind the scenes, > whereas > this takes packets from an unknown source and distributes them among a set of > workers a single packet at a time. (While handling single packets is slower > than > handling packet bursts, it is something that is sometimes needed to support > existing code which may not be written to work with packet bursts.) > >network interfaces, not > to demultiplex received data to multiple workers. That makes more sense. > Sorry > for the noise. I've got a few more comments inline with the rest of your > patches. > Neil
No problem, thanks for the feedback, I'll work through it and submit a v2 patch as soon as I can. /Bruce
