From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga01.intel.com (mga01.intel.com [192.55.52.88]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54F60FBA7 for ; Tue, 20 Dec 2016 16:32:16 +0100 (CET) Received: from orsmga001.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.18]) by fmsmga101.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 20 Dec 2016 07:31:47 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.33,379,1477983600"; d="scan'208";a="1074460557" Received: from fyigit-mobl1.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.237.220.29]) ([10.237.220.29]) by orsmga001.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 20 Dec 2016 07:31:45 -0800 To: Vincent JARDIN , "Chen, Jing D" , Thomas Monjalon References: <20161216143919.4909-1-ferruh.yigit@intel.com> <5846f66b-9a83-faa6-3de1-c7ae12236201@6wind.com> <4341B239C0EFF9468EE453F9E9F4604D3C5B7FE2@shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com> <7801511.7yxptAly8J@xps13> <4341B239C0EFF9468EE453F9E9F4604D3C5B8459@shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com> <42c7689f-a827-aa3c-777b-cfc78107d63e@6wind.com> <4341B239C0EFF9468EE453F9E9F4604D3C5B8BD7@shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com> <932774d3-e0f7-7b44-1635-9015b8be6c0e@6wind.com> Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" , "Wu, Jingjing" , "Zhang, Helin" From: Ferruh Yigit Message-ID: <23012b3e-b02a-d5ff-762b-be352766c274@intel.com> Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2016 15:31:45 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.5.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <932774d3-e0f7-7b44-1635-9015b8be6c0e@6wind.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 00/29] Support VFD and DPDK PF + kernel VF on i40e 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: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2016 15:32:17 -0000 On 12/20/2016 3:18 PM, Vincent JARDIN wrote: > Le 20/12/2016 à 05:48, Chen, Jing D a écrit : >> That's a collaboration with another team. we'll follow-up that but not guarantee >> it will happen. >> May I ask if my reply make it clear? Still NAC for this patch? > > Yes still nack, I am not confident with this PF approach since you are > breaking Linux PF behavior. It does not provide guarantees with PF. > Something is missing to guarantee the compatibilities. Hi Vincent, Mark, What do you think separating the mentioned patch (patch 24/29) from patchset and submit as a standalone patch, so that it can be discussed more without blocking the patchset? Thanks, ferruh > > Thank you, > Vincent >