From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wr0-f180.google.com (mail-wr0-f180.google.com [209.85.128.180]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7EE81075 for ; Fri, 17 Mar 2017 00:41:32 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-wr0-f180.google.com with SMTP id l37so42207879wrc.1 for ; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 16:41:32 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=6wind-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:organization:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=9PFkggwgyVnSwXMZtcXd3s4mW8fm99Hw+lMTHlft3pY=; b=uEJVPD9IJvCi/LwYlv32XItZDhSOtxWVz0cMiGNfDuuHNRpKAGRUbxcttiZxMHYrBn U4u1rTEQhDb2IC7d4igoIOv/NvrOoRFRhCLZt5pGfriITP2UKo/foPDZMwvie9FBZgdw AnIrDMwIa1ldy1SpcumDXWsowmM3F/WEcgh0EEPzwYvVJ8Hxi/0Pv0si0NwlUJ/zjm8P zyUeltwJaEKr2lLtzd3Uo6G6h8hRacb4YEOm6IOdUeG9tBmT9YxE3nDcG4A38JeCJ6vv KOh5PRPFIvn0EYWHHTNtq6CovwCsdEox+G2I2bO+kLZ2llnD7TKQCGEVAfF6Fyhde8hW UE0g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=9PFkggwgyVnSwXMZtcXd3s4mW8fm99Hw+lMTHlft3pY=; b=hqza8kIteY4M641ebh2f3hM3QUoUbhQxmnL9xUDI6ljxaUsVooH+lqKTrpirlPzEk1 EGyxNMiPK19cPOOs+ixIjjb1tyC3ivvvyNCDl6z4/2GlZmP0+p14uHrXUUfexjCKrz8W oVbjOkLE9kK9+/8GdkumK3P8Gw2XBPYyNJvd3UssBDLdGV//+dA7u1d9VRb7nPZj9FdX sdEPdVDIVJWLh588adTlI+OCBYBYH8GEAY+PIhdQqbhBOsGGKXRTrJ9eP1iOrv/i564N nDFG88EbRsHcr+GDPxZCqYQo/FwCgAZTlrGL50qftqU6zDldZPkGikAgKZRWMgvaHVpQ 2ouQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H1lsWYXdDdVEIwhP9eXmFfRtUD783hHZZ67KESumqrxihhHlhkqjJcN0rWrE6oXS+Dz X-Received: by 10.223.164.83 with SMTP id e19mr10150170wra.201.1489707692430; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 16:41:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2a01:e35:8a8e:1b70:4826:7277:9592:9830? ([2a01:e35:8a8e:1b70:4826:7277:9592:9830]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id v186sm636049wmv.2.2017.03.16.16.41.30 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 16 Mar 2017 16:41:31 -0700 (PDT) To: Stephen Hemminger , "O'Driscoll, Tim" , "Legacy, Allain (Wind River)" References: <1488414008-162839-1-git-send-email-allain.legacy@windriver.com> <1489432593-32390-1-git-send-email-allain.legacy@windriver.com> <4b3a0ff4-3d19-8e4b-0cbf-2a08e6433285@6wind.com> <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA7231E927@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> <20170316161731.34b94669@xeon-e3> Cc: "Yigit, Ferruh" , "dev@dpdk.org" , "Jolliffe, Ian (Wind River)" , "Richardson, Bruce" , "Mcnamara, John" , "Wiles, Keith" , "thomas.monjalon@6wind.com" , "jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com" , "3chas3@gmail.com" <3chas3@gmail.com>, stefanha@gmail.com, Markus Armbruster From: Vincent JARDIN Organization: www.6wind.com Message-ID: <73cdfe30-ed3b-6dd6-a2d8-fc2873fb65f3@6wind.com> Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2017 00:41:29 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20170316161731.34b94669@xeon-e3> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 00/17] Wind River Systems AVP PMD vs virtio? - ivshmem is back 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: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 23:41:32 -0000 Let's be back to 2014 with Qemu's thoughts on it, +Stefan https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/virtualization/2014-June/026767.html and +Markus https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/virtualization/2014-June/026713.html > 6. Device models belong into QEMU > > Say you build an actual interface on top of ivshmem. Then ivshmem in > QEMU together with the supporting host code outside QEMU (see 3.) and > the lower layer of the code using it in guests (kernel + user space) > provide something that to me very much looks like a device model. > > Device models belong into QEMU. It's what QEMU does. Le 17/03/2017 à 00:17, Stephen Hemminger a écrit : > On Wed, 15 Mar 2017 04:10:56 +0000 > "O'Driscoll, Tim" wrote: > >> I've included a couple of specific comments inline below, and a general comment here. >> >> We have somebody proposing to add a new driver to DPDK. It's standalone and doesn't affect any of the core libraries. They're willing to maintain the driver and have included a patch to update the maintainers file. They've also included the relevant documentation changes. I haven't seen any negative comment on the patches themselves except for a request from John McNamara for an update to the Release Notes that was addressed in a later version. I think we should be welcoming this into DPDK rather than questioning/rejecting it. >> >> I'd suggest that this is a good topic for the next Tech Board meeting. > > This is a virtualization driver for supporting DPDK on platform that provides an alternative > virtual network driver. I see no reason it shouldn't be part of DPDK. Given the unstable > ABI for drivers, supporting out of tree DPDK drivers is difficult. The DPDK should try > to be inclusive and support as many environments as possible. > On Qemu mailing list, back to 2014, I did push to build models of devices over ivshmem, like AVP, but folks did not want that we abuse of it. The Qemu community wants that we avoid unfocusing. So, by being too much inclusive, we abuse of the Qemu's capabilities. So, because of being "inclusive", we should allow any cases, it is not a proper way to make sure that virtio gets all the focuses it deserves.