> From: dev [mailto:dev-boun...@openvswitch.org] On Behalf Of Thomas F > > On 6/25/15 12:39 PM, Flavio Leitner wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 06:48:20PM -0700, Pravin Shelar wrote: > >> On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 11:42 AM, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote: > >>> Do you two have an opinion on this? If DPDK support is pretty solid > >>> now then it makes sense to apply this to master and backport it to > >>> branch-2.4. > >> > >> Personally I would like to have better testing with vhost, tunneling > >> and PMD thread management before removing experimental status. > Once > >> that is done I will be more comfortable with it. > > > > What kind of test are you looking for? Indeed, vhost and tunneling > > are fairly new, yes, but ethernet ports are being tested for the whole > > 2.3 cycle. > > > > My concern is that a new DPDK related feature would push that again. > > Perhaps come up with a table stating features X status? > Flavio, This sounds like a practical approach toward additional testing that > will > help move this forward. +1
Maybe this should be a general approach for all features that are added to both the kernel and the userspace datapath. +1 for Flavio's approach. > > > > DPDK ports Stable > > DPDK vhost-cuse Experimental/Obsolete > > DPDK vhost-user Experimental > > DPDK ivshmem ... > > DPDK PMD management ... > > > > fbl > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > dev mailing list > > dev@openvswitch.org > > http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev > > > > > -- > Thomas F. Herbert > _______________________________________________ > dev mailing list > dev@openvswitch.org > http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
