From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1B52A0562; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 14:29:15 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 914521BFC1; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 14:29:14 +0200 (CEST) Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com (out4-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.28]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1ADB3F12; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 14:29:13 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute7.internal (compute7.nyi.internal [10.202.2.47]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F9E95C0412; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 08:29:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute7.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 31 Mar 2020 08:29:12 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type; s=mesmtp; bh=JYxAapDYaU7WDcBv6RWMhvZGawemULhsonT2f2VsISU=; b=C2u7Z4pznkuP sANWGzNT20iUNLEcvS6mqeCHRuc2c/L2lSArVm57istRTQmYp+Vk8ESShOjteIIR YlPc4wxONWAicz8EJeQJVfj5GjgKEk1ByJzr/ry5/UcY9jWXYmPBkQR29V5ZMy1r eIkDci7oMshHMcsgsQMH9BgJ3fbOQN4= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=JYxAapDYaU7WDcBv6RWMhvZGawemULhsonT2f2VsI SU=; b=zWcKwYmcoqw9vRoMS2DqO3ua26Gk+iukA8WwRV3/++BFhBj5m3QBh7oyw 2pHUA9WBOx/xcn3VdOuFHuQfDz/nHW+M3zXk5EeT2ZZdalWgqc6ntS2dktxH7m55 QFqAC2GeF+hQjFdwtlOY8o/y4Hx3ZndajgZpm1ugCv6mI0H6J5gZ0DVibXf4+Kpq dhL13gz35bUd+xJ1hr4hZ5FYmxi3PAMjS0vH8P3kKk8tc2KLNV00OEAC7hLJyGwh 1aiX6ZSn38Akj3265opGToup19b2pptZ83lxqFe7qRL71sfPHwmuAa6qtJDc3/T6 EySM7IPju+HgGbQ9K/wRyPvrizytg== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduhedrtddtgddulecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenuc fjughrpefhvffufffkjghfggfgtgesthfuredttddtvdenucfhrhhomhepvfhhohhmrghs ucfoohhnjhgrlhhonhcuoehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvghtqeenucfkph epjeejrddufeegrddvtdefrddukeegnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghr rghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepthhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvth X-ME-Proxy: Received: from xps.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net [77.134.203.184]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 1C0DA306CB5A; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 08:29:11 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Neil Horman Cc: Finn Christensen , dev@dpdk.org, Bent Kuhre , Michael Lilja , techboard@dpdk.org Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2020 14:29:08 +0200 Message-ID: <11835288.hYdu0Ggh8K@xps> In-Reply-To: <20200331121721.GA3858830@hmswarspite.think-freely.org> References: <3917216.uADA5c2rLh@xps> <20200331121721.GA3858830@hmswarspite.think-freely.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Napatech pmd X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 31/03/2020 14:17, Neil Horman: > On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 01:25:25PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Raising this topic again. > > > > As said in the past, it is better to have this PMD inside DPDK. > > We discussed some concerns, but I think the consensus was to integrate > > Napatech PMD anyway. > > > > I am sad that you did not feel welcome enough to follow up with patches > > during all these years. > > Please would you like to restart the upstreaming process? > > > Whats changed here? Nothing changed, except years. > I still don't see what the advantage is to accepting this code in the DPDK tree. > No one will be able to use it without accepting Napatechs license for their > underlying library. As such, the code can't really be maintained at all by > anyone other than Napatech in the community, and so may as well just be > maintained as an out of tree driver. You are the only one having this concern. Nobody from the Technical Board looks to be against the acceptance. The advantage is simple: Napatech customers will be able to run any DPDK version. > > 08/01/2018 14:08, Finn Christensen: > > > Hi Thomas, > > > > > > Thanks for bringing this discussion up again. > > > > > > The Napatech PMD is build on top of our proprietary driver. The reason is basically that we utilize many years of driver development and thus reuses the FPGA controlling code in the DPDK PMD. The Napatech driver suite is still closed source. > > > The current NTNIC PMD dynamically links a Napatech proprietary NTAPI library to control the FPGA on our NICs. > > > > > > We did think of the PMD as being our responsibility to keep updated towards the Napatech NIC communication, and that we would be engaged and asked to modify accordingly if changes in DPDK required that (maintainer). Furthermore, the PMD compiles with no issues, when NTNIC is enabled. > > > We have plans to write a stand-alone PMD, but this is not a small task to do, therefore we haven't got to that yet. > > > > > > If the DPDK community would accept the dynamic linking to a proprietary library, from inside our PMD, then it would be great. > > > > > > Let me know what you think. Or maybe you have ideas to what else we could do to make it upstream. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Finn > > > > > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > > > >From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas@monjalon.net] > > > >Sent: 5. januar 2018 16:34 > > > >To: Finn Christensen > > > >Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] standardize device identification > > > > > > > >It leads to a totally different question: > > > >Can we discuss again how to integrate your driver in DPDK upstream? > > > >Please explain again your situation in a new thread. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >