2016-02-29 17:19, Panu Matilainen: > On 02/29/2016 01:35 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote: > > On 2/29/2016 11:06 AM, Thomas Monjalon 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. > >> > > Hi Thomas, > > > > It is great to have some discussion and feedbacks. > > But I doubt not merging in this release will help to have more discussion. > > > > It is better to have them in this release and let people experiment it, > > this gives more chance to better discussion. > > > > These features are replacement of KNI, and KNI is not intended to be > > removed in this release, so who are using KNI as solution can continue > > to use KNI and can test KCP/KDP, so that we can get more feedbacks. > > So make the work available from a separate git repo and make it easy for > people to experiment with it. Code doesn't have to be in a release for > the sake of experimenting, and removing code is much harder than not > adding it in the first place, witness KNI.
Good idea. What about a -next tree to experiment on kernel interactions?
