> -----Original Message----- > From: Jan Scheurich [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Thursday, December 7, 2017 3:09 PM > To: Kevin Traynor <[email protected]>; Kavanagh, Mark B > <[email protected]>; Ilya Maximets <[email protected]>; > Stokes, Ian <[email protected]>; [email protected] > Cc: [email protected]; Mooney, Sean K > <[email protected]>; Fischetti, Antonio > <[email protected]>; Bie, Tiwei <[email protected]>; > Mcnamara, John <[email protected]>; Guoshuai Li > <[email protected]>; Loftus, Ciara <[email protected]>; Yuanhan Liu > <[email protected]> > Subject: RE: [ovs-dev] [PATCH V4 2/2] netdev-dpdk: vHost IOMMU support > > > > I think the point that both yourself and Sean has made is > completely valid, which puts option a) back on the table. > > > > > > > a) Sounds ok to me. I think an early DPDK17.11.1 before OVS 2.9 would > > be good in addition though. It is nicer that an OVS 2.9 user doesn't > > have to know they can't use the latest DPDK in the guest. > > > > Would the virtio PMD bug in DPDK 17.11 in the guest actually be > mitigated by running DPDK 17.05 or a fixed 17.11.1 as vhostuser backend > inside OVS on the host? [Mooney, Sean K] from talking to mark about this eairlier I don’t belive so. I think if you used 17.11 testpmd in the guest with kernel ovs you should get the same behavior e.g. it does not forward packet. The guest should not be able to know with certainty what vhost backend is in use on the host. > > If not, I would prefer if we decoupled the DPDK life cycle of OVS and > DPDK applications in the guest. Guests should update their DPDK version > if it contains a critical bug. > > BR, Jan >
_______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
