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
> > 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 for a new PMD is not ideal.
>
> So ideally
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
Thomas,
First and easy answer: it is open source, so anyone can recompile. So,
what's the issue?
> Without a concept of stable interfaces, it will be difficult to
> package and distribute RTE libraries, PMD, and DPDK applications. Right
> now, the obvious path would include packaging the PMD
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 2:01 AM, Thomas Graf wrote:
> 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
Hi Thomas,
On 29/01/2014 09:15, Thomas Graf wrote:
> The obvious and usual best practise would be for DPDK to guarantee
> ABI stability between minor releases.
>
> Since dpdk-dev is copied as well, any comments?
DPDK's ABIs are not Kernel's ABIs, they are not POSIX, there is no
standard.
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
On Wed, 29 Jan 2014 18:14:01 +0100
Thomas Graf wrote:
> 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
>
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,
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 7:48 AM, Thomas Graf wrote:
> 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
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 8:49 PM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 05:48:35PM -0800, 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
11 matches
Mail list logo
