From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from EUR01-VE1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-oln040092066060.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.92.66.60]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 517AA133F for ; Mon, 20 Mar 2017 23:31:01 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hotmail.com; s=selector1; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=L9yyTELevaZLfv8eFkPSlfkxHOiaK4/JcaaUHx3nV2c=; b=OJ/gzuRHSztOYKkGzfyd6thKSidKh1EncTnUWYs7u15yIgOAEKfe+Sm9VVZbQMCF50vVcUqXz+j5S52vkNxNv2JJWF3IdbP4XvfcdBG6mVvOcUFvSy7QYK9xspgmo8O4pJe22SDY0odrp3GYDVCmo4kF5i+iWI06WxjegW8E+Shy79n2Bz/woPEiDP5JOSee+8j9L4MxiBlqzJOfr0cBgP/PCguTBmjWS9DhJRdlPVIfxsNMQ6skqBWw1RpY8HgwMW0zrmY59fE1aJxnO5Zho0uSBZZ1f0kflpOeAg3Qe8u0EdYo71EBVcZWBxIcq2V67NcQIMYZ+GlqoXLbNAZAbQ== Received: from VE1EUR01FT024.eop-EUR01.prod.protection.outlook.com (10.152.2.54) by VE1EUR01HT011.eop-EUR01.prod.protection.outlook.com (10.152.2.121) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P384) id 15.1.977.7; Mon, 20 Mar 2017 22:31:00 +0000 Received: from VI1PR06MB1152.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com (10.152.2.56) by VE1EUR01FT024.mail.protection.outlook.com (10.152.2.213) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P384) id 15.1.977.7 via Frontend Transport; Mon, 20 Mar 2017 22:31:00 +0000 Received: from VI1PR06MB1152.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com ([10.162.124.148]) by VI1PR06MB1152.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com ([10.162.124.148]) with mapi id 15.01.0977.019; Mon, 20 Mar 2017 22:30:59 +0000 From: Hobywan Kenoby To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" , Thomas Monjalon CC: "Wiles, Keith" , Jason Wang , Vincent JARDIN , Stephen Hemminger , "O'Driscoll, Tim" , "Legacy, Allain (Wind River)" , "Yigit, Ferruh" , "dev@dpdk.org" , "Jolliffe, Ian (Wind River)" , Markus Armbruster , Stefan Hajnoczi Thread-Topic: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 00/17] Wind River Systems AVP PMD vs virtio? - ivshmem is back Thread-Index: AQHSnymwYuRgWi3TcU66RNXBRgyqVKGeUqsy Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 22:30:59 +0000 Message-ID: References: <1488414008-162839-1-git-send-email-allain.legacy@windriver.com> <9242BBFE-279B-46E3-BC04-62F1FE897824@intel.com> <3140337.WIddM6FeqF@xps13>,<20170317155036-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: <20170317155036-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: authentication-results: redhat.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;redhat.com; dmarc=none action=none header.from=hotmail.com; x-incomingtopheadermarker: OriginalChecksum:A483972A6FAFA824396D747B56E5EFEEC5C5F1683D87AE34BB602337E2D84FBB; UpperCasedChecksum:DB052B55220858D3F4BA839DA65A4444A038E61BB5926939E76B53CDC1234A5A; SizeAsReceived:8894; Count:43 x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1 x-tmn: [f2xMIVSrT+C+3AxC462dBsQKmO/xdWnQ] x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; VE1EUR01HT011; 5:N7lUIKKfThmMAnRZlXPvcNy278FUmFTDQM3Fmvhm2aVx52FR3Z5MeLDjVGN93LHHAo38ojTXVnLW2PHy7TV12SLWRdxxgsA4WhMSd2lIPFjwpfQPoXMQ4p1dABx+BJeYQUVjew4Yp4XCDxpi+WHEKg==; 24:W9mKbxd19yZMQbvI1wA/X1uigRSog6QeTQs8Nu+CW6WbfvX0bMf8d2TIhu4fivsg7lMs6u7TPfEThuPQMQCc0/P2niUXeYJCcCuxC1xvVAM=; 7:PsoycRGjLeclWTECw1lS635sNG9S46mzb66d8nv1dYEjV1rZFQg2DLFccukxpHNEPH7LZljVv8LyvM9kaSKIx0zPFbjnuM1RAWGbuOq18J2O7umD9fwZScz/6YYf1PkUwDCaPIARntbOSnDtXED6RR5ZyRA3+qc+Mn/rYTR+DWg6T/GEE3RpYsvsN4Lz9eclM5TF8Iq/ray+9vsUc14QpHT8V+VvApzB8OQ6YVb9Zw3o4z2gkdVF7Wch3p9JXT/6I9O4zcogyXVF8RQVuLVq3ppMfwIKM5O/nS0PQj3AW4a8Fm8Q12sPw/FbQEgsZJxT x-incomingheadercount: 43 x-eopattributedmessage: 0 x-forefront-antispam-report: EFV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; SFS:(7070007)(98900017); DIR:OUT; SFP:1901; SCL:1; SRVR:VE1EUR01HT011; H:VI1PR06MB1152.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: b1cc38f3-e022-4377-ee61-08d46fe0c8d0 x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(22001)(201702061074)(5061506573)(5061507331)(1603103135)(1603101448)(1601125254)(1701031045); SRVR:VE1EUR01HT011; x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(444000031); SRVR:VE1EUR01HT011; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:VE1EUR01HT011; x-forefront-prvs: 02524402D6 spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99 spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: hotmail.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 20 Mar 2017 22:30:59.4752 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Internet X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 84df9e7f-e9f6-40af-b435-aaaaaaaaaaaa X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: VE1EUR01HT011 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15 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: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 22:31:01 -0000 If AVP was an upstream device of Qemu or Linux kernel that would be very na= tural to have a DPDK PMD (setting aside my comments on a preferred single v= irtual device). As far as I know this is not the case. Because of that, one could see the AVP PMD as a way to leverage open source= to promote proprietary technology. That is the heart of the problem with t= he proposal. So I would recommend waiting for an upstream qemu support to consider AVP i= n DPDK . FF ________________________________ From: dev on behalf of Michael S. Tsirkin Sent: Friday, March 17, 2017 2:52:06 PM To: Thomas Monjalon Cc: Wiles, Keith; Jason Wang; Vincent JARDIN; Stephen Hemminger; O'Driscoll= , Tim; Legacy, Allain (Wind River); Yigit, Ferruh; dev@dpdk.org; Jolliffe, = Ian (Wind River); Markus Armbruster; Stefan Hajnoczi Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 00/17] Wind River Systems AVP PMD vs virt= io? - ivshmem is back On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 09:48:38AM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > I think there is one interesting technological point in this thread. > We are discussing about IVSHMEM but its support by Qemu is confused. > This feature is not in the MAINTAINERS file of Qemu. > Please Qemu maintainers, what is the future of IVSHMEM? You should try asking this question on the qemu mailing list. Looking at archives, Jan Kiszka was the last one who expressed some interest in this device. -- MST