Hi Luke,
On 5/7/15, 10:29 PM, "Luke Gorrie" wrote:
>On 8 May 2015 at 06:16, Wiles, Keith wrote:
>
>The PMDs or drivers would not be useful without DPDK MBUFS IMO
>
>
>
>
>
>Surprisingly perhaps, I would find them very useful.
>
>
>To me there are two parts to a driver: the hardware setup and th
> Sounds like you want something like libc, but DPDK is a system like a user
> space OS more then it is a collection of functions that are independent
> like strlen, strcpy, memcpy, printf or ... Some parts of DPDK are
> independent and can be used as you suggest, but the real performance
> sectio
On 8 May 2015 at 11:42, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> The code in those directories is "common" code that is maintained by Intel
> -
> which is why you see repeated comments about not modifying it for DPDK. It
> is
> just contained in it's own subfolder in each DPDK driver for easier
> updating
> off
Hi Bruce,
On 8 May 2015 at 11:06, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> For the Intel NIC drivers, the hardware setup part used in DPDK is based
> off
> the other Intel drivers for other OS's. The code you are interested in
> should
> therefore be contained within the subfolders off each individual PMD. As
On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 11:32:04AM +0200, Luke Gorrie wrote:
> Hi Bruce,
>
> On 8 May 2015 at 11:06, Bruce Richardson
> wrote:
>
> > For the Intel NIC drivers, the hardware setup part used in DPDK is based
> > off
> > the other Intel drivers for other OS's. The code you are interested in
> > sh
On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 07:29:39AM +0200, Luke Gorrie wrote:
> On 8 May 2015 at 06:16, Wiles, Keith wrote:
>
> > The PMDs or drivers would not be useful without DPDK MBUFS IMO
> >
>
> Surprisingly perhaps, I would find them very useful.
>
> To me there are two parts to a driver: the hardware se
On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 12:26:39PM +0200, Hobywan Kenoby wrote:
>
> > Sounds like you want something like libc, but DPDK is a system like a user
> > space OS more then it is a collection of functions that are independent
> > like strlen, strcpy, memcpy, printf or ... Some parts of DPDK are
> > ind
On Fri, 8 May 2015 09:31:34 -0400
Neil Horman wrote:
> On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 12:26:39PM +0200, Hobywan Kenoby wrote:
> >
> > > Sounds like you want something like libc, but DPDK is a system like a user
> > > space OS more then it is a collection of functions that are independent
> > > like str
On Fri, 8 May 2015 14:44:17 +
"Wiles, Keith" wrote:
> Hi Luke,
>
> On 5/7/15, 10:29 PM, "Luke Gorrie" wrote:
>
> >On 8 May 2015 at 06:16, Wiles, Keith wrote:
> >
> >The PMDs or drivers would not be useful without DPDK MBUFS IMO
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Surprisingly perhaps, I would find the
On 8 May 2015 at 06:16, Wiles, Keith wrote:
> The PMDs or drivers would not be useful without DPDK MBUFS IMO
>
Surprisingly perhaps, I would find them very useful.
To me there are two parts to a driver: the hardware setup and the
transmit/receive.
The hardware setup is complex and generic. You
Hi Luke
On 5/7/15, 8:34 AM, "Luke Gorrie" wrote:
>On 7 May 2015 at 16:02, Avi Kivity wrote:
>
>> One problem we've seen with dpdk is that it is a framework, not a
>>library:
>> it wants to create threads, manage memory, and generally take over.
>>This
>> is a problem for us, as we are writing a
On 5/7/15, 9:05 AM, "Avi Kivity" wrote:
>On 05/07/2015 06:49 PM, Wiles, Keith wrote:
>>
>> On 5/7/15, 8:33 AM, "Avi Kivity" wrote:
>>
>>> On 05/07/2015 06:27 PM, Wiles, Keith wrote:
On 5/7/15, 7:02 AM, "Avi Kivity" wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 6:11 PM, O'Driscoll, Tim
>
On 05/07/2015 06:49 PM, Wiles, Keith wrote:
>
> On 5/7/15, 8:33 AM, "Avi Kivity" wrote:
>
>> On 05/07/2015 06:27 PM, Wiles, Keith wrote:
>>> On 5/7/15, 7:02 AM, "Avi Kivity" wrote:
>>>
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 6:11 PM, O'Driscoll, Tim
wrote:
> Does anybody have any input o
On 05/07/2015 06:27 PM, Wiles, Keith wrote:
>
> On 5/7/15, 7:02 AM, "Avi Kivity" wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 6:11 PM, O'Driscoll, Tim
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Does anybody have any input or comments on this?
>>>
>>>
-Original Message-
From: O'Driscoll, Tim
Sent: Thursday
On 05/07/2015 06:27 PM, Wiles, Keith wrote:
>
> On 5/7/15, 7:02 AM, "Avi Kivity" wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 6:11 PM, O'Driscoll, Tim
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Does anybody have any input or comments on this?
>>>
>>>
-Original Message-
From: O'Driscoll, Tim
Sent: Thursday
On 7 May 2015 at 16:02, Avi Kivity wrote:
> One problem we've seen with dpdk is that it is a framework, not a library:
> it wants to create threads, manage memory, and generally take over. This
> is a problem for us, as we are writing a framework (seastar, [1]) and need
> to create threads, mana
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 6:11 PM, O'Driscoll, Tim
wrote:
> Does anybody have any input or comments on this?
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: O'Driscoll, Tim
> > Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2015 11:39 AM
> > To: dev at dpdk.org
> > Subject: Beyond DPDK 2.0
> >
> > Following the launch of
Hi Avi,
On 05/07/2015 04:02 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 6:11 PM, O'Driscoll, Tim
> wrote:
>
>> Does anybody have any input or comments on this?
>>
>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: O'Driscoll, Tim
>>> Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2015 11:39 AM
>>> To: dev at dpdk.org
>>
On 5/7/15, 8:33 AM, "Avi Kivity" wrote:
>On 05/07/2015 06:27 PM, Wiles, Keith wrote:
>>
>> On 5/7/15, 7:02 AM, "Avi Kivity" wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 6:11 PM, O'Driscoll, Tim
>>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
Does anybody have any input or comments on this?
> -Original Mes
On 5/7/15, 7:02 AM, "Avi Kivity" wrote:
>On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 6:11 PM, O'Driscoll, Tim
>
>wrote:
>
>> Does anybody have any input or comments on this?
>>
>>
>> > -Original Message-
>> > From: O'Driscoll, Tim
>> > Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2015 11:39 AM
>> > To: dev at dpdk.org
>> > S
Darn forgot the site link, below.
On 4/30/15, 4:31 PM, "Wiles, Keith" wrote:
>
>(I snipped out the content here only because it had been snipped a lot
>already)
>
>Sorry, if I am highjacking the thread.
>
>I believe the DPDK community would benefit from moving to GitHub as the
>primary DPDK site
(I snipped out the content here only because it had been snipped a lot
already)
Sorry, if I am highjacking the thread.
I believe the DPDK community would benefit from moving to GitHub as the
primary DPDK site. http://github.com
I believe the DPDK community can benefit from being at a very well
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 12:26 PM, Neil Horman wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 08:46:01AM -0500, Jay Rolette wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 7:10 AM, Neil Horman
> wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 02:55:33PM -0500, Jay Rolette wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 1:51 PM, Neil Horma
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 08:46:01AM -0500, Jay Rolette wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 7:10 AM, Neil Horman wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 02:55:33PM -0500, Jay Rolette wrote:
> > > On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 1:51 PM, Neil Horman
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > So, I hear your arguments, and its und
On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 09:47:58 +0200
Luke Gorrie wrote:
> Hi Tim,
>
> On 16 April 2015 at 12:38, O'Driscoll, Tim
> wrote:
>
> > Following the launch of DPDK by Intel as an internal development project,
> > the launch of dpdk.org by 6WIND in 2013, and the first DPDK RPM packages
> > for Fedora i
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 5:29 AM, Jim Thompson wrote:
>
> > On Apr 26, 2015, at 4:56 PM, Neil Horman wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 04:08:23PM +, Wiles, Keith wrote:
> >> +1 and besides the GPL or LGPL ship has sailed IMHO and we can not go
> back.
> > Actually, IANAL, but I think we
On Apr 25, 2015, at 5:10 AM, Neil Horman wrote:
> I'm more focused on why that level of participation is not higher
Hi Neal,
This mail is probably way too long, but here is what I saw about participation,
in my case I used DPDK on two projects so far:
1) proprietary project for a L4-L7 statefu
On 27/04/15 15:39, Wiles, Keith wrote:
>
> On 4/27/15, 4:52 AM, "Marc Sune" wrote:
>
>>
>> On 27/04/15 03:41, Wiles, Keith wrote:
>>> On 4/26/15, 4:56 PM, "Neil Horman" wrote:
>>>
On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 04:08:23PM +, Wiles, Keith wrote:
> On 4/25/15, 8:30 AM, "Marc Sune" wrote:
>
On 4/27/15, 5:29 AM, "Neil Horman" wrote:
>On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 01:41:11AM +, Wiles, Keith wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 4/26/15, 4:56 PM, "Neil Horman" wrote:
>>
>> >On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 04:08:23PM +, Wiles, Keith wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On 4/25/15, 8:30 AM, "Marc Sune" wrote:
>> >>
On 4/27/15, 4:52 AM, "Marc Sune" wrote:
>
>
>On 27/04/15 03:41, Wiles, Keith wrote:
>>
>> On 4/26/15, 4:56 PM, "Neil Horman" wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 04:08:23PM +, Wiles, Keith wrote:
On 4/25/15, 8:30 AM, "Marc Sune" wrote:
>
> On 24/04/15 19:51, Matthe
On 27/04/15 03:41, Wiles, Keith wrote:
>
> On 4/26/15, 4:56 PM, "Neil Horman" wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 04:08:23PM +, Wiles, Keith wrote:
>>>
>>> On 4/25/15, 8:30 AM, "Marc Sune" wrote:
>>>
On 24/04/15 19:51, Matthew Hall wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 12:39:47PM -
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 01:50:17PM +, Wiles, Keith wrote:
>> >>
> >> >This is absolutely a problem. I'd like to think, more than a tool like
> >> >patchwork, a subtree organization to allow some modicum of parallel
> >> >review and
> >> >integration would really be a benefit here.
> >> Subtr
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 08:38:48AM -0400, Dave Neary wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 04/26/2015 05:56 PM, Neil Horman wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 04:08:23PM +, Wiles, Keith wrote:
> >> I would like to see some type of layering process to allow patches to be
> >> applied in a timely manner a few wee
On Mon, 27 Apr 2015 08:38:48 -0400
Dave Neary wrote:
> What Keith is describing is very similar to a change management/change
> control board you might find for production/IT processes:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Change_control_board
>
> An efficient change management board approves "low ove
On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 09:29:13PM -0500, Jim Thompson wrote:
>
> > On Apr 26, 2015, at 4:56 PM, Neil Horman wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 04:08:23PM +, Wiles, Keith wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 4/25/15, 8:30 AM, "Marc Sune" wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 24/04/15 19:51, Matthew
On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 21:29:13 -0500
Jim Thompson wrote:
> I, on the other hand, am fairly certain that you can not ?relicense BSD
> licensed code under the GPL (or any other license).
>
> Were this true at law, then the opposite would also be possible. (?Don?t
> like the license? Just fork!?)
On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 7:10 AM, Neil Horman wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 02:55:33PM -0500, Jay Rolette wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 1:51 PM, Neil Horman
> wrote:
> >
> > > So, I hear your arguments, and its understandable that you might not
> want
> > > a GPL
> > > licensed product, g
Hi,
On 04/26/2015 05:56 PM, Neil Horman wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 04:08:23PM +, Wiles, Keith wrote:
>> I would like to see some type of layering process to allow patches to be
>> applied in a timely manner a few weeks not months or completely ignored.
>> Maybe some type of voting is rea
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 01:41:11AM +, Wiles, Keith wrote:
>
>
> On 4/26/15, 4:56 PM, "Neil Horman" wrote:
>
> >On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 04:08:23PM +, Wiles, Keith wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 4/25/15, 8:30 AM, "Marc Sune" wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >On 24/04/15 19:51, Matthew Hall wr
On 4/26/15, 4:56 PM, "Neil Horman" wrote:
>On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 04:08:23PM +, Wiles, Keith wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 4/25/15, 8:30 AM, "Marc Sune" wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >On 24/04/15 19:51, Matthew Hall wrote:
>> >> On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 12:39:47PM -0500, Jay Rolette wrote:
>> >>> I can t
> On Apr 26, 2015, at 4:56 PM, Neil Horman wrote:
>
> On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 04:08:23PM +, Wiles, Keith wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 4/25/15, 8:30 AM, "Marc Sune" wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 24/04/15 19:51, Matthew Hall wrote:
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 12:39:47PM -0500, Jay Rolette wrote:
>
On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 04:08:23PM +, Wiles, Keith wrote:
>
>
> On 4/25/15, 8:30 AM, "Marc Sune" wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >On 24/04/15 19:51, Matthew Hall wrote:
> >> On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 12:39:47PM -0500, Jay Rolette wrote:
> >>> I can tell you that if DPDK were GPL-based, my company wouldn't
Hi Neil,
Thanks for taking the time to reflect on my ideas.
On 24 April 2015 at 19:00, Neil Horman wrote:
> DPDK will always be
> something of a niche market for user to whoom every last ounce of
> performance is
> the primary requirement
This does seem like an excellent position. It is succi
On 4/25/15, 8:30 AM, "Marc Sune" wrote:
>
>
>On 24/04/15 19:51, Matthew Hall wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 12:39:47PM -0500, Jay Rolette wrote:
>>> I can tell you that if DPDK were GPL-based, my company wouldn't be
>>>using
>>> it. I suspect we wouldn't be the only ones...
>>>
>>> Jay
>> I
On 24/04/15 19:51, Matthew Hall wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 12:39:47PM -0500, Jay Rolette wrote:
>> I can tell you that if DPDK were GPL-based, my company wouldn't be using
>> it. I suspect we wouldn't be the only ones...
>>
>> Jay
> I could second this, from the past employer where I used i
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 02:55:33PM -0500, Jay Rolette wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 1:51 PM, Neil Horman wrote:
>
> > So, I hear your arguments, and its understandable that you might not want
> > a GPL
> > licensed product, given that the DPDK is a library (though I'm not sure
> > what the
> >
Hi Tim,
On 04/23/2015 07:36 AM, O'Driscoll, Tim wrote:
>> Alternatively, propose some options and vote, but I don't think we have
>> things defined
>> enough for that yet.
>
> We tried to keep the initial communication neutral and avoid suggesting
> solutions to give others a chance to comment.
> From: lukego at gmail.com [mailto:lukego at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Luke
> Gorrie
>
> > On 16 April 2015 at 12:38, O'Driscoll, Tim
> > wrote:
> > Following the launch of DPDK by Intel as an internal development project,
> > the launch of dpdk.org by
> > 6WIND in 2013, and the first DPDK RPM
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 1:51 PM, Neil Horman wrote:
> So, I hear your arguments, and its understandable that you might not want
> a GPL
> licensed product, given that the DPDK is a library (though I'm not sure
> what the
> aversion to LGPL would be). Regardless, I think this conversation is a
>
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 01:12:13PM -0500, Matt Laswell wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 12:39 PM, Jay Rolette
> wrote:
> >
> > I can tell you that if DPDK were GPL-based, my company wouldn't be using
> > it. I suspect we wouldn't be the only ones...
> >
>
> I want to emphasize this point. It's u
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 12:39 PM, Jay Rolette
wrote:
>
> I can tell you that if DPDK were GPL-based, my company wouldn't be using
> it. I suspect we wouldn't be the only ones...
>
I want to emphasize this point. It's unsurprising that Jay and I agree,
since we work together. But I can say with
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 03:29:01PM +, O'Driscoll, Tim wrote:
>
> > From: lukego at gmail.com [mailto:lukego at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Luke
> > Gorrie
> >
> > > On 16 April 2015 at 12:38, O'Driscoll, Tim
> > > wrote:
> > > Following the launch of DPDK by Intel as an internal development pro
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 2:47 AM, Luke Gorrie wrote:
> 2. How will DPDK users justify contributing to DPDK upstream?
>
> Engineers in network equipment vendors want to contribute to open source,
> but what is the incentive for the companies to support this? This would be
> easy if DPDK were GPL'd
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 12:39:47PM -0500, Jay Rolette wrote:
> I can tell you that if DPDK were GPL-based, my company wouldn't be using
> it. I suspect we wouldn't be the only ones...
>
> Jay
I could second this, from the past employer where I used it. Right now I am
using it in an open source a
Hi Tim,
On 16 April 2015 at 12:38, O'Driscoll, Tim wrote:
> Following the launch of DPDK by Intel as an internal development project,
> the launch of dpdk.org by 6WIND in 2013, and the first DPDK RPM packages
> for Fedora in 2014, 6WIND, Red Hat and Intel would like to prepare for
> future relea
> From: Stephen Hemminger [mailto:stephen at networkplumber.org]
>
> This does a good job of stating the need for action without getting into the
> details.
> Perhaps this would be better resolved by some more interactive discussion.
> I know it is hard to all get together, but there needs to be
Does anybody have any input or comments on this?
> -Original Message-
> From: O'Driscoll, Tim
> Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2015 11:39 AM
> To: dev at dpdk.org
> Subject: Beyond DPDK 2.0
>
> Following the launch of DPDK by Intel as an internal development
> project, the launch of dpdk.org
This does a good job of stating the need for action without getting into
the details.
Perhaps this would be better resolved by some more interactive discussion.
I know it is hard to all get together, but there needs to be more some more
creative and focused
thought on this. A phone conference is ju
Following the launch of DPDK by Intel as an internal development project, the
launch of dpdk.org by 6WIND in 2013, and the first DPDK RPM packages for Fedora
in 2014, 6WIND, Red Hat and Intel would like to prepare for future releases
after DPDK 2.0 by starting a discussion on its evolution. Anyo
59 matches
Mail list logo
