On Wed, 15 Mar 2017 04:10:56 +0000 "O'Driscoll, Tim" <tim.odrisc...@intel.com> 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. 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. This is a virtualization driver for supporting DPDK on platform that provides an alternative virtual network driver. I see no reason it shouldn't be part of DPDK. Given the unstable ABI for drivers, supporting out of tree DPDK drivers is difficult. The DPDK should try to be inclusive and support as many environments as possible.
