On 03/02/2016 04:02 AM, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Feb 2016 08:33:25 -0600
> Jay Rolette <rolette at infiniteio.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 5:06 AM, Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon at
>> 6wind.com>
>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> I know you guys are very interested in getting rid of the out-of-tree
>> drivers, but please do not block incremental improvements to DPDK in the
>> meantime. Ferruh's patch improves the usability of KNI. Don't throw out
>> good and useful enhancements just because it isn't where you want to be in
>> the end.
>>
>> I'd like to see these be merged.
>>
>> Jay
>
> The code is really not ready. I am okay with cooperative development
> but the current code needs to go into a staging type tree.
> No compatibility, no ABI guarantees, more of an RFC.
> Don't want vendors building products with it then screaming when it
> gets rebuilt/reworked/scrapped.
>
Exactly.
If a venturous vendor wants to go and build a product based on something
in a staging tree there's nothing stopping them from doing that, but at
least it should set the expectations straight.
- Panu -
