Hi Flavio, Daniele
I think that the idea of integrating the patch in the naming convention is
good.
I only have two comments:
- I would keep it limited to physical devices for the moment, maybe in a
future we can think about supporting other device creation arguments.
- How is the detach suppose
Hi Flavio,
I was thinking that instead of having a separate appctl we could integrate
the attach into netdev_dpdk_construct() while changing the naming
convention, as discussed here:
http://openvswitch.org/pipermail/dev/2016-August/078113.html
What do you think?
Thanks,
Daniele
2016-10-26
Hi Mauricio,
Could you please rebase this patch? It doesn't apply anymore.
I will review ASAP.
Thanks!
Flavio
On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 04:15:31PM +0200, Mauricio Vasquez B wrote:
> In order to use dpdk ports in ovs they have to be bound to a DPDK
> compatible driver before ovs is started.
>
>
In order to use dpdk ports in ovs they have to be bound to a DPDK
compatible driver before ovs is started.
This patch adds the possibility to hotplug (or hot-unplug) a device
after ovs has been started. The implementation adds two appctl commands:
netdev-dpdk/port-attach and
