Stefan Hajnoczi writes:
> On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 09:48:38AM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
>> We are discussing about IVSHMEM but its support by Qemu is confused.
>> This feature is not in the MAINTAINERS file of Qemu.
>> Please Qemu maintainers, what is the future of IVSHMEM?
Red-headed stepchi
M
> To: Thomas Monjalon
> Cc: Wiles, Keith; Jason Wang; Vincent JARDIN; Stephen Hemminger; O'Driscoll,
> Tim; Legacy, Allain (Wind River); Yigit, Ferruh; dev@dpdk.org; Jolliffe, Ian
> (Wind River); Markus Armbruster; Stefan Hajnoczi
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 00/17] Wind
Monjalon
Cc: Wiles, Keith; Jason Wang; Vincent JARDIN; Stephen Hemminger; O'Driscoll,
Tim; Legacy, Allain (Wind River); Yigit, Ferruh; dev@dpdk.org; Jolliffe, Ian
(Wind River); Markus Armbruster; Stefan Hajnoczi
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 00/17] Wind River Systems AVP PMD vs virtio?
- iv
On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 09:48:38AM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> I think there is one interesting technological point in this thread.
> We are discussing about IVSHMEM but its support by Qemu is confused.
> This feature is not in the MAINTAINERS file of Qemu.
> Please Qemu maintainers, what is th
> -Original Message-
> From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monja...@6wind.com]
> Sent: Friday, March 17, 2017 4:49 AM
<...>
> I think there is one interesting technological point in this thread.
> We are discussing about IVSHMEM but its support by Qemu is confused.
> This feature is not
2017-03-17 00:53, Wiles, Keith:
> Regardless of what the transport layer is ivshmem, virtio sharemem, ethernet,
> a serial line at 9600 baud or two squirrels transferring nuts it just does
> not make sense to restrict a transport type like ivshmem (that AVP is using)
> over any other transport t
> On Mar 17, 2017, at 8:31 AM, Vincent JARDIN wrote:
>
> Le 17/03/2017 à 01:11, Wiles, Keith a écrit :
>> it seems like some other hidden agenda is at play here, but I am a paranoid
>> person :-)
>
> Keith, please stop such invalid argument! It is non sense.
>
> We need to understand the bene
Le 17/03/2017 à 01:11, Wiles, Keith a écrit :
it seems like some other hidden agenda is at play here, but I am a paranoid
person :-)
Keith, please stop such invalid argument! It is non sense.
We need to understand the benefits of diverging from virtio since here
it is about creating new devi
> From: Wiles, Keith
>
>
> > On Mar 17, 2017, at 7:41 AM, Vincent JARDIN
> wrote:
> >
> > Let's be back to 2014 with Qemu's thoughts on it,
> > +Stefan
> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/virtualization/2014-
> June/026767.html
> >
> > and
> > +Markus
> > https://lists.linuxfoundatio
On Fri, 17 Mar 2017 00:11:10 +
"Wiles, Keith" wrote:
> > On Mar 17, 2017, at 7:41 AM, Vincent JARDIN
> > wrote:
> >
> > Let's be back to 2014 with Qemu's thoughts on it,
> > +Stefan
> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/virtualization/2014-June/026767.html
> >
> > and
> > +Marku
> On Mar 17, 2017, at 7:41 AM, Vincent JARDIN wrote:
>
> Let's be back to 2014 with Qemu's thoughts on it,
> +Stefan
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/virtualization/2014-June/026767.html
>
> and
> +Markus
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/virtualization/2014-June/026713
> On Mar 17, 2017, at 7:41 AM, Vincent JARDIN wrote:
>
> Let's be back to 2014 with Qemu's thoughts on it,
> +Stefan
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/virtualization/2014-June/026767.html
>
> and
> +Markus
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/virtualization/2014-June/026713
Let's be back to 2014 with Qemu's thoughts on it,
+Stefan
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/virtualization/2014-June/026767.html
and
+Markus
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/virtualization/2014-June/026713.html
6. Device models belong into QEMU
Say you build an actual
On Wed, 15 Mar 2017 04:10:56 +
"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 m
On 16 March 2017 at 11:32, Chas Williams <3ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2017-03-16 at 03:18 +, O'Driscoll, Tim wrote:
> > > From: Vincent JARDIN [mailto:vincent.jar...@6wind.com]
> > >
> > > Le 15/03/2017 à 11:55, Thomas Monjalon a écrit :
> > > >> I'd suggest that this is a good topic f
On Thu, 2017-03-16 at 03:18 +, O'Driscoll, Tim wrote:
> > From: Vincent JARDIN [mailto:vincent.jar...@6wind.com]
> >
> > Le 15/03/2017 à 11:55, Thomas Monjalon a écrit :
> > >> I'd suggest that this is a good topic for the next Tech Board
> > meeting.
> > > I agree Tim.
> > > CC'ing techboard
Sent from my iPhone
> On Mar 16, 2017, at 4:53 PM, Francois Ozog wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Virtio is special in many ways:
> - it is a multi-vendor supported specification
> - it is a multi-vendor opensource implementation in guest OSes
> (Windows, Linux, FreeBSD...)
> - it is a multi-vendor, opens
Hi,
Virtio is special in many ways:
- it is a multi-vendor supported specification
- it is a multi-vendor opensource implementation in guest OSes
(Windows, Linux, FreeBSD...)
- it is a multi-vendor, opensource implementation in hypervisors
So, the great benefit of virtio is that with a SINGLE d
> From: Vincent JARDIN [mailto:vincent.jar...@6wind.com]
>
> Le 15/03/2017 à 11:55, Thomas Monjalon a écrit :
> >> I'd suggest that this is a good topic for the next Tech Board
> meeting.
> > I agree Tim.
> > CC'ing techboard to add this item to the agenda of the next meeting.
>
> Frankly, I disa
> On Mar 15, 2017, at 10:02 PM, Vincent JARDIN wrote:
>
> Le 15/03/2017 à 05:10, O'Driscoll, Tim a écrit :
>>> 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 getti
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:
Le 15/03/2017 à 11:55, Thomas Monjalon a écrit :
I'd suggest that this is a good topic for the next Tech Board meeting.
I agree Tim.
CC'ing techboard to add this item to the agenda of the next meeting.
Frankly, I disagree, it is missing some discussions on the list.
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@ maili
Le 15/03/2017 à 05:10, O'Driscoll, Tim a écrit :
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
Le 15/03/2017 à 05:10, O'Driscoll, Tim a écrit :
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
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 dri
2017-03-15 04:10, O'Driscoll, Tim:
> 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 h
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
Allain,
see inline,
+ I did restore the thread from
http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2017-March/060087.html into the same email.
To make it short, using ivshmem, you keep people unfocused from virtio.
Vincent,
Perhaps you can help me understand why the performance or functionality of
AVP vs.
This patch series submits an initial version of the AVP PMD from Wind River
Systems. The series includes shared header files, driver implementation,
and changes to documentation files in support of this new driver. The AVP
driver is a shared memory based device. It is intended to be used as a PM
30 matches
Mail list logo
