> > Therefore we have two options. > 1) add the option '--with dpdk' to the current spec file, so that users that > doesn't want DPDK just follow the usual steps and that's it. DPDK users only > need to pass those two arguments to have the OVS+DPDK RPM files. > > 2) Create another copy of .spec (openvswitch-dpdk.spec?) with DPDK > support enabled. > > Another question is static versus shared linking. > > My opinion is that we should go with (1), shared linked, but I don't know if > it > covers all use-cases. > > Thoughts?
It seems like option (1) would reduce duplication of code. As long as there is no performance degradation when using shared linking (I think there was an issue with that a while ago) then it is a better option and would allow us to potentially use newer versions of DPDK. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
