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 87E74A0562; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 22:07:19 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E1691C1EA; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 22:07:18 +0200 (CEST) Received: from wout4-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout4-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.20]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B96B1C1DE; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 22:07:16 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute7.internal (compute7.nyi.internal [10.202.2.47]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1012AB6; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 16:07:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute7.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 31 Mar 2020 16:07:15 -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=hpjQZi75zCdtuSiIKEFGk58DrxdzgHnLqJbSGUAT2N0=; b=p48PYBDoG9SP poJAJlQor6mYjkqo+Pu+Ydc/PyuH3d2ITwUpWWdNi9Ta6s9tT9vv0h8t2K9t7fZT OpBxJsGOd1Henc74K/ksaZ7m/vkFsDQTHo+gDXRqt5dH0cvLZib3APvUWikEkDBz N4/IA2d6IZG+DGOZTz9Ru+FDHV1FF28= 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=hpjQZi75zCdtuSiIKEFGk58DrxdzgHnLqJbSGUAT2 N0=; b=pKj6+fcGyggbyb++1nj0oxEAPxTDoR8gH26w8sjPon3wcn/YsOl6l5fDT VOi6mCGA7E1a6U0SKGkOZeW69ZkP+LnOIi7o2XX7nlIyhS1XhMmQC8kIgv7V+ejg PBBWDkRnft5ZHs8p65qE76wMntk/oJdwVSKSoKwRLLn4ajwKOBI9JHTlUiqNGay8 KNAg25iS9vVX1MvtprrB5ieJ0tm6ctQtDgzpkZNW2RkkXIbOXBu7PpYJ1m68Y7ku 88tfOJTZLUx7BlWHntbcBGgsDqTZa7gmDIAjajNMxjgmTS/hd9FZiESyGNXucPqO SsoGpP+G/CifcyFrDhUQO7a/WNhfQ== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduhedrtddtgdduudduucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhephffvufffkfgjfhgggfgtsehtufertddttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefvhhhomhgr shcuofhonhhjrghlohhnuceothhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvtheqnecuff homhgrihhnpehgihhthhhusgdrtghomhenucfkphepjeejrddufeegrddvtdefrddukeeg necuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepthhhoh hmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvth 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 AF3B5306CBDE; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 16:07:13 -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 22:07:12 +0200 Message-ID: <4836428.jY9Djz4Zq0@xps> In-Reply-To: <20200331195655.GC3858830@hmswarspite.think-freely.org> References: <11835288.hYdu0Ggh8K@xps> <20200331195655.GC3858830@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 21:56, Neil Horman: > On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 02:29:08PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 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. > I don't think its wise to assume that silence implies acceptance. > > > 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. > Why is that not possible by having napatech maintain an out-of-tree PMD? Theres > no reason that can't be done. They are maintaining an out-of-tree PMD: https://github.com/napatech/dpdk/releases I'm just trying to improve the situation, avoiding DPDK forks.