Hi
[Cross posting this to dpdk-dev for exposure]
We had excellent technical discussions around network virtualization
at LPC13 last year and would love to provide the same forum at this
year's LPC again.
I believe this would be a good opportunity to discuss integration of
DPDK with the Linux net
On 03/21/2014 01:59 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> In order to distinguish clearly this implementation from the extension
> vmxnet3-usermap, it is renamed to reflect its usage of uio framework.
>
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Monjalon
LGTM
Acked-by: Thomas Graf
On 04/02/2014 11:53 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 2014-02-26 14:07, Thomas Graf:
>>> +BuildRequires: kernel-devel, kernel-headers, doxygen
>>
>> Is a python environment required as well?
>
> Python is only needed to run some tools on the target. But is is optiona
On 04/02/2014 12:08 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 2014-02-26 14:22, Thomas Graf:
>> On 02/04/2014 04:54 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
>>> +BuildRequires: dpdk-core-devel, kernel-devel, kernel-headers
>>> +Requires: dpdk-core-runtime
>>
>> How does the compatibil
On 04/02/2014 11:01 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Sorry for the long delay.
>
> 2014-02-24 08:52, Chris Wright:
>>> pkg/rpm.spec | 143
>>
>> This should be dpdk.spec
>
> Actually it should be dpdk-core.spec.
> Since it is a file hosted in the project, is it mandatory to have such namin
On 02/04/2014 04:54 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> Packages can be built with:
> RPM_BUILD_NCPUS=8 rpmbuild -ta dpdk-1.5.2r2.tar.gz
>
> There are packages for runtime, static libraries and development.
> Once devel package installed, it can be used like this:
> make -C /usr/share/dpdk/exa
On 02/04/2014 04:54 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> +BuildRequires: dpdk-core-devel, kernel-devel, kernel-headers
> +Requires: dpdk-core-runtime
How does the compatibility mapping look like? I assume a given vmxnet3
version can only be linked against certain dpdk versions? We need to
encode that mapp
On 01/28/2014 07:17 PM, Pravin Shelar wrote:
> Right, version mismatch will not work. API provided by DPDK are not
> stable, So OVS has to be built for different releases for now.
>
> I do not see how we can fix it from OVS side. DPDK needs to
> standardize API, Actually OVS also needs more API, li
On 01/28/2014 02:48 AM, pshelar at nicira.com wrote:
> From: Pravin B Shelar
>
> Following patch adds DPDK netdev-class to userspace datapath.
> Approach taken in this patch differs from Intel? DPDK vSwitch
> where DPDK datapath switching is done in saparate process. This
> patch adds support for
Vincent,
On 01/29/2014 11:26 AM, Vincent JARDIN wrote:
> DPDK's ABIs are not Kernel's ABIs, they are not POSIX, there is no
> standard. Currently, there is no such plan to have a stable ABI since we
> need to keep freedom to chase CPU cycles over having a stable ABI. For
> instance, some applicati
On 01/29/2014 05:34 PM, Vincent JARDIN wrote:
> Thomas,
>
> First and easy answer: it is open source, so anyone can recompile. So,
> what's the issue?
I'm talking from a pure distribution perspective here: Requiring to
recompile all DPDK based applications to distribute a bugfix or to
add support
On 01/29/2014 09:47 PM, Fran?ois-Fr?d?ric Ozog wrote:
> In the telecom world, if you fix the underlying framework of an app, you
> will still have to validate the solution, ie app/framework. In addition, the
> idea of shared libraries introduces the implied requirement to validate apps
> against di
12 matches
Mail list logo
