[dpdk-dev] Beyond DPDK 2.0

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

[dpdk-dev] Beyond DPDK 2.0

> 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 >

[dpdk-dev] Beyond DPDK 2.0

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 >

[dpdk-dev] Beyond DPDK 2.0

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

[dpdk-dev] Beyond DPDK 2.0

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 > >

[dpdk-dev] Beyond DPDK 2.0

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

[dpdk-dev] Beyond DPDK 2.0

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 > >

[dpdk-dev] Beyond DPDK 2.0

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

[dpdk-dev] Beyond DPDK 2.0

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

[dpdk-dev] Beyond DPDK 2.0

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.

[dpdk-dev] Beyond DPDK 2.0

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

[dpdk-dev] Beyond DPDK 2.0

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 >

[dpdk-dev] Beyond DPDK 2.0

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: >

[dpdk-dev] Beyond DPDK 2.0

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:

[dpdk-dev] Beyond DPDK 2.0

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:

[dpdk-dev] Beyond DPDK 2.0

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,

[dpdk-dev] Beyond DPDK 2.0

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 >

[dpdk-dev] Beyond DPDK 2.0

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

[dpdk-dev] Beyond DPDK 2.0

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?

[dpdk-dev] Beyond DPDK 2.0

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

[dpdk-dev] Beyond DPDK 2.0

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

[dpdk-dev] Beyond DPDK 2.0

(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

[dpdk-dev] Beyond DPDK 2.0

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

[dpdk-dev] Beyond DPDK 2.0

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

[dpdk-dev] Beyond DPDK 2.0

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

[dpdk-dev] Beyond DPDK 2.0

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

[dpdk-dev] Beyond DPDK 2.0

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

[dpdk-dev] Beyond DPDK 2.0

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:

[dpdk-dev] Beyond DPDK 2.0

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: >>

[dpdk-dev] Beyond DPDK 2.0

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,

[dpdk-dev] Beyond DPDK 2.0

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. > >>

[dpdk-dev] Beyond DPDK 2.0

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

[dpdk-dev] Beyond DPDK 2.0

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

[dpdk-dev] Beyond DPDK 2.0

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,

[dpdk-dev] Beyond DPDK 2.0

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

[dpdk-dev] Beyond DPDK 2.0

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,

[dpdk-dev] Beyond DPDK 2.0

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

[dpdk-dev] Beyond DPDK 2.0

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

[dpdk-dev] Beyond DPDK 2.0

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

[dpdk-dev] Beyond DPDK 2.0

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

[dpdk-dev] Beyond DPDK 2.0

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

[dpdk-dev] Beyond DPDK 2.0

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 >

[dpdk-dev] Beyond DPDK 2.0

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

[dpdk-dev] Beyond DPDK 2.0

> 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

[dpdk-dev] Beyond DPDK 2.0

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 >

[dpdk-dev] Beyond DPDK 2.0

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

[dpdk-dev] Beyond DPDK 2.0

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

[dpdk-dev] Beyond DPDK 2.0

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

[dpdk-dev] Beyond DPDK 2.0

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

[dpdk-dev] Beyond DPDK 2.0

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

[dpdk-dev] Beyond DPDK 2.0

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

[dpdk-dev] Beyond DPDK 2.0

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