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 067ECA0537; Wed, 5 Feb 2020 02:03:27 +0100 (CET) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27FFD1C1E4; Wed, 5 Feb 2020 02:03:26 +0100 (CET) Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com (out3-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.27]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F4501C0DC for ; Wed, 5 Feb 2020 02:03:25 +0100 (CET) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57D6E2202C; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 20:03:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 04 Feb 2020 20:03:24 -0500 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=yTRCTqyhbE9OMNW9Gf+hI9Ac24RbyjMgD2RziypowIU=; b=lUIBobPeJ3QI WbIlr/rbx1LRfU/+ZTfiez8Or+HQBkXKdXGZ3UoMjFAWH3xOfCRksjPee/9X3lbR Dz9bx5eC9v8yFmfkNGsYjKNVOYPuX9WS2pArQkHkXmqC/5MDXv5YK7vOZCqGZFWN fuOraf6NBGllqJ1d7HH/xhUv8bVLkmY= 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=fm1; bh=yTRCTqyhbE9OMNW9Gf+hI9Ac24RbyjMgD2Rziypow IU=; b=mSjNvD3fXk1eqALgv2WWTX6aMjyseJ6xHWmLxZMadxkVX4M6McwAxHdTZ 1dI+8R0UQ0jl3ubuxQCmuVdW2nLpK8BAJt6vf7ESatya5amnKLCbNbedfOYM7F8k bveo3aBO10N7czSIsTXvcbY88pIC2ftkIukNKK14cmW+aeMuAGyM2Jc17yde7viS Q3wvIa38IyxZVq95vsuF+ZeemFWDedMGQQzVZz7DLiXV/qGhC6HCB8Y/qrnPg50s J4U60sGN5R3IASoDP6flJo0irE77Tw7kUQgbtPSz30CQezdzyIz7P7KAPNzOT6td WzgBrdTjllw95FocbU4IFVbzXaHzQ== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedugedrhedtgdefudcutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenuc fjughrpefhvffufffkjghfggfgtgesthfuredttddtvdenucfhrhhomhepvfhhohhmrghs ucfoohhnjhgrlhhonhcuoehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvghtqeenucffoh hmrghinhepughpughkrdhorhhgpdhgihhthhhusgdrtghomhenucfkphepjeejrddufeeg rddvtdefrddukeegnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilh hfrhhomhepthhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvth 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 28A333280060; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 20:03:23 -0500 (EST) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Dmitry Kozliuk Cc: dev@dpdk.org, Pallavi Kadam , Anatoly Burakov , Ranjit Menon , Harini.Ramakrishnan@microsoft.com, Stephen Hemminger Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2020 02:03:22 +0100 Message-ID: <1672064.3VsfAaAtOV@xps> In-Reply-To: <20200202233736.74bdf47f@Sovereign> References: <20200202233736.74bdf47f@Sovereign> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Windows Support Plan 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" 02/02/2020 21:37, Dmitry Kozliuk: > Where do I find a high-level plan of comprehensive Windows support: design > decisions, implementation order, etc? Please help documenting design decisions in the DPDK doc. For implementation order, we'll discuss it soon together. > Information on the subject is very scarce, one may think it is abandoned. > Googling for "site:dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/ windows" yields only two pages > of disjoint messages. I learned about "netuio" days ago from a tiny remark in > a "Minutes of Technical Board Meetings" email, and even then it took > enumerating "dpdk-next-windows" branches to find the source. I agree. I think Harini will address this lack of information. > The matter is, as a New Year's holiday project of mine I implemented Windows > support from scratch to the point it runs in QEMU with virtio-pci [0]. It is > not of production quality, cuts some corners and lacks major features (see > bottom). My primary goal was fun^W making it work. Comparing it to > "windpdk-v18.08" branch of "dpdk-next-windows", I can see that 1) our > implementations take rather different approaches in some cases, and 2) both > have severe issues and would benefit from amalgamation. I'd like to > contribute to Windows support with this code, but to do so, coordination is > required, because changes are significant. You are very welcome. The work you already did looks amazing and it is very well presented. [...] > 3. POSIX shim vs EAL wrappers (@Thomas, @Pallavi, @Ranjit) > > What is the policy: to implement a POSIX shim in EAL (as the latest > patches from Pallavi Kadam do), or to add dependencies (as [1] suggests)? You are right, we should think about adding new dependencies which are easily and generally available. > IMO creating a shim is wrong. I do not like the shim layer either. > First, some POSIX concepts do not > easily map to Windows, like poll() interface and I/O model in > general. Second, there are numerous getopt, pthread, etc. > implementations for Windows, no point wasting resources and repeat > them, adding bugs. I can think of two exceptions: > > * , which is header-only. > > * Berkeley sockets. Adding to public headers creates > more trouble that its worth: definitions for a few structures and > constants. May be there should be some to abstract > platform differences. [...] > * multi-process (due to limited time) As Anatoly said, multi-process is not a priority. This feature has a high cost, so we should think twice before deciding to support it on Windows. [...] > [0]: https://github.com/PlushBeaver/dpdk/commits/windows > [1]: http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2015-February/014245.html Thanks a lot