Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 00/13] introduce fail-safe PMD

[Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>]

On 3/20/2017 3:00 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> There have been some discussions on this new PMD and it will be
> discussed today in the techboard meeting.
> 
> I would like to expose my view and summarize the solutions I have heard.
> First it is important to remind that everyone agrees on the need for
> this feature, i.e. masking the hotplug events by maintaining an ethdev
> object even without real underlying device.
> 
> 1/ 
> The proposal from Gaetan is to add a failsafe driver with 2 features:
> 	* masking underlying device
> 	* limited and small failover code to switch from a device
> 	  to another one, with the same centralized configuration
> The latter feature makes think to the bonding driver, but it could be
> kept limited without any intent of implementing real bonding features.
> 
> 2/ 
> If we really want to merge failsafe and bonding features, we could
> create a new bonding driver with centralized configuration.
> The legacy bonding driver let each slave to be configured separately.
> It is a different model and we should not mix them.
> If one is better, it could be deprecated later.
> 
> 3/
> It can be tried to implement the failsafe feature into the bonding
> driver, as Neil suggests.
> However, I am not sure it would work very well or would be easy to use.
> 
> 4/
> We can implement only the failsafe feature as a PMD and use it to wrap
> the slaves of the bonding driver.
> So the order of link would be 
> 	bonding -> failsafe -> real device
> In this model, failsafe can have only one slave and do not implement
> the fail-over feature.
> 

Tech board decided [1] to "reconsider" the PMD for this release (17.08).
So, lets start it J

I think it is good idea to continue on top of above summary, is there a
plan to how to proceed?

Thanks,
ferruh

[1]
http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2017-March/061009.html