From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wi0-f178.google.com (mail-wi0-f178.google.com [209.85.212.178]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E85AC35E for ; Fri, 24 Apr 2015 21:55:34 +0200 (CEST) Received: by wizk4 with SMTP id k4so34176229wiz.1 for ; Fri, 24 Apr 2015 12:55:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=k0NA+5PVEt3Y8erTOBJCfokt9DnK4hjLEkxJ7NYtf5g=; b=MBfJW0cCiAMtP+pj2y79MeoBFZlHgbi0Bgk2RADdqdXS9+HSim7klreD/uhJh7vMlX ZFElWwyFOBboQ9uKb97QfE8ey43zADBrYL1eV9cQh1oTDVT5K3Ydhh6u4yL0CrSRzwP8 ObnYMMtrDKu5oAbLo0g0g4id2dmvaY6dJiJYAHezsuQlqn0HlVwSlZ0bl2tnEkRIxIw2 XXR8Eb9zK2ClG5rN2FOdDypLY1fGzfT8USoNXC/v4Z/dbq8Kc8kVfkOTEXXd3BpK82+Q /5c6LXaMnGSkVMECuxdU1EWIsXGrHCHQHnL6hjecNSkpIsGJFLNnaZE/nh+Ca+3MNx7o kVvw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlMtqQVucDE6wvW0+VqVJOdgyRJvEE9kaV7vhaUx9wV08jsWX8VtOb4uMoP59pBJSHFh+4X MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.206.66 with SMTP id lm2mr62460wjc.79.1429905333963; Fri, 24 Apr 2015 12:55:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.194.36.193 with HTTP; Fri, 24 Apr 2015 12:55:33 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20150424185123.GD32445@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> References: <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA54D1A917@IRSMSX102.ger.corp.intel.com> <20150424185123.GD32445@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2015 14:55:33 -0500 Message-ID: From: Jay Rolette To: Neil Horman Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15 Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Beyond DPDK 2.0 X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2015 19:55:34 -0000 On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 1:51 PM, Neil Horman wrote: > So, I hear your arguments, and its understandable that you might not want > a GPL > licensed product, given that the DPDK is a library (though I'm not sure > what the > aversion to LGPL would be). Regardless, I think this conversation is a > bit more > about participation than license choice. While you are correct, in that > the > first step to support (by which I presume you mean participation in the > community) is use, the goal here is to get people contributing patches and > helping increase the usefulness of DPDK. > Given that DPDK is primarily licensed as BSD now, whats preventing you, or > what > would encourage you to participate in the community? I see emails from > infiniteio addresss in the archives asking questions and making > suggestions on > occasion, but no patches. What would get you (or others in a simmilar > situation) to submit those? > 36 hours in the day? :) It's not a lot, but we've submitted a couple of small patches. It's mostly a matter of opportunity. We submit patches as we come across DPDK bugs or find useful optos. *Patches* - replaced O(n^2) sort in sort_by_physaddr() with qsort() from standard library - Fixed spam from kni_allocate_mbufs() when no mbufs are free. If mbufs exhausted, 'out of memory' message logged at EXTREMELY high rates. Now logs no more than once per 10 mins *Reviews* - kni: optimizing the rte_kni_rx_burst - [PATCH RFC] librte_reorder: new reorder library - [PATCH v2 09/17] i40e: clean log messages (several in that series, but I figure 1 link is plenty) *Other* Not really patches or reviews, but trying to participate in the community: - VMware Fusion + DPDK and KNI - Appropriate DPDK data structures for TCP sockets - kernel: BUG: soft lockup - CPU#1 stuck for 22s! [kni_single:1782] - segmented recv ixgbevf Jay