> -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com] > Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 2:45 PM > To: Traynor, Kevin <kevin.traynor at intel.com> > Cc: dev at dpdk.org; nakajima.yoshihiro at lab.ntt.co.jp; mst at redhat.com; > p.fedin at samsung.com; ann.zhuangyanying at huawei.com > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/5] mem: add --single-file to create > single mem-backed file > > 2016-03-14 13:53, Traynor, Kevin: > > From: Thomas Monjalon > > > 2016-03-08 17:04, Yuanhan Liu: > > > > On Tue, Mar 08, 2016 at 10:49:30AM +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote: > > > > > On 03/07/2016 03:13 PM, Yuanhan Liu wrote: > > > > > Note that SINGLE_FILE_SEGMENTS is a nasty hack that only the IVSHMEM > > > config > > > > > uses, getting rid of it (by replacing with a runtime switch) would be > > > great. > > > > > > > > Can't agree more. > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > > > OTOH IVSHMEM itself seems to have fallen out of the fashion since the > > > memnic > > > > > driver is unmaintained and broken since dpdk 2.0... CC'ing the > IVSHMEM > > > > > maintainer in case he has thoughts on this. > > > > > > The ivshmem config was not used for memnic which was using ivshmem only > for > > > data path. > > > CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_IVSHMEM and CONFIG_RTE_EAL_SINGLE_FILE_SEGMENTS are > more > > > about full memory sharing. > > > I have the feeling it could be dropped. > > > It there are some users, I'd like to see a justification and a rework to > > > remove these build options. > > > > Just to clarify - is this suggesting the removal of the IVSHMEM library > itself, > > or just some of the config options? > > I have no strong opinion about the library. > About the config options, yes they should be removed. Note that they are not > documented, so we don't really know the motivation to have them.
ok, thanks for clarifying. As there's no imminent plans to remove the library, I won't cross post. > > > The reason I ask is that although we don't currently use it in OVS with > DPDK, > > I've seen at least one person using it in conjunction with the ring > interface. > > There may be others, so I want to cross-post if there's a deprecation > discussion. > > Thank you for sharing.
