On Wed, 8 Jun 2016 07:34:43 +0000 "Lu, Wenzhuo" <wenzhuo.lu at intel.com> wrote:
> > > > The fact that it requires lots more locking inside each device driver > > implies to me > > this is not correct way to architect this. > It's a good question. This patch set doesn't follow the regular assumption of > DPDK. > But it's a requirement we've got from some customers. The users want the > driver does as much as it can. The best is the link state change is > transparent to the users. > The patch set tries to provide another choice if the users don't want to stop > their rx/tx to handle the reset event. Then bring those uses to the development world (on users mailing list) and lets start the discussion there. The requirements creeping in through the backdoor also worries me.
