On 3/15/2017 2:08 PM, Vincent JARDIN wrote: > Le 15/03/2017 à 12:29, Ferruh Yigit a écrit : >> The scope of the patch is limited to PMD. >> As long as it is maintained, it is good to have alternative approaches. > > From your logic, then, how many PMDs can be accepted? > > See my previous email: techboard should not bypass discussion of the > dev@ mailing list. I believe that the question for the techboard is > about the number of PMDs that we can get into the DPDK: if any PMDs can > get in, so AVP, fail-safe, xyz, whatever the models that are proposed. > We could even get 2 PMDs of a same (v)NIC, but with different > implementation-designs.
There is difference between code duplication, and providing alternative solutions. Agree that we should prevent duplication. And what is bad if number of the PMDs increased, again as long as they are owned/maintained? If not maintained properly, they can be removed as recent net/mpipe example. I believe PMDs are a little different from rest of DPDK, because of their scope, it is easy to exclude any of them without effecting rest, and it is good to have alternative solutions, so user can pick one works best for her, and natural selection can do its work here too. > > Best regards, > Vincent >
