On 3/15/2017 4:10 AM, O'Driscoll, Tim wrote: > I've included a couple of specific comments inline below, and a general > comment here. > > We have somebody proposing to add a new driver to DPDK. It's standalone and > doesn't affect any of the core libraries. > They're willing to maintain the driver and have included a patch to update the maintainers file.
+1 The scope of the patch is limited to PMD. As long as it is maintained, it is good to have alternative approaches. > They've also included the relevant documentation changes. I haven't seen any > negative comment on the patches themselves except for a request from John > McNamara for an update to the Release Notes that was addressed in a later > version. I think we should be welcoming this into DPDK rather than > questioning/rejecting it. > > I'd suggest that this is a good topic for the next Tech Board meeting. <...> >> To make it short, using ivshmem, you keep people unfocused from virtio. > > I agree with the desire to have virtio as the preferred solution. I think the > way to do that is by promoting the benefits of a standard solution and > continually improving the performance, as we are doing. I don't think it's a > reason to reject alternative solutions though. > <...> >> so, still an nack because: >> - no performance data of avp vs virtio, > > I don't think it should be a requirement for Allain to provide performance > data in order to justify getting this accepted into DPDK. Keith pointed out > in a previous comment on this patch set that even if performance is the same > as virtio, there might still be other reasons why people would want to use it. > >> - 2013 is gone, >> - it unfocuses from virtio. >> >> Best regards, >> Vincent
