> > >> On Dec 10, 2018, at 4:06 AM, Jakub Grajciar <jgraj...@cisco.com> wrote: > > > > > > I do not like being the coding style police, but that is most of the > > > comments > > here and I will try to test this one later this week. Plus I am sure I > > missed some style problems, if you have not read the coding style for > > DPDK please have a read. > > > > > > http://doc.dpdk.org/guides/contributing/coding_style.html > > > > > > One comment, why did you include all of the code to handle memif > > > instead > > of including the libmemif.a from VPP. I worry if libmemif is changed > > then we have a breakage. I do not mind the PMD being standalone and I > > do like not having the dependence. > Just for my understanding, do you mean to say we could include the > libmemif.a as a binary in DPDK? > > IMO, I would like to view DPDK as the device abstraction and VPP as the > protocol stack built on top. From this perspective, it is good to have > standalone memif in DPDK. > > > > > > > As I did not dive into the code much it does look reasonable and I > > > hope to > > give it a try later this week. > > >> > > > > A couple more items, do you plan on writing the documentation for the > > PMD and provide an example program? > +1, would be good to have a cover letter. Please ignore, I already see V3 having some documentation.
> I would like to run this on Arm platforms, mostly in the beginning of Jan. > > > > > Regards, > > Keith
