From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga09.intel.com (mga09.intel.com [134.134.136.24]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB9C011DE; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 04:18:46 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=intel; t=1489634327; x=1521170327; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=hRz5t+9B3JFFcaikClXu7SQe1w4CN6V5M3h7cuQ7NtE=; b=sPDjnA5eEmuC39+0CWphHAUTK/UrrbtBRLzJubQFJXr1r1tdwEdNELwv c1fue2bmfcgvjHrO1BUE3Mv5RUsFVw==; Received: from fmsmga003.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.29]) by orsmga102.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 15 Mar 2017 20:18:45 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.36,170,1486454400"; d="scan'208";a="835172654" Received: from irsmsx107.ger.corp.intel.com ([163.33.3.99]) by FMSMGA003.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 15 Mar 2017 20:18:44 -0700 Received: from irsmsx108.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.11.173]) by IRSMSX107.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.10.3]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 03:18:42 +0000 From: "O'Driscoll, Tim" To: Vincent JARDIN , Thomas Monjalon CC: "Legacy, Allain (Wind River)" , "Yigit, Ferruh" , "dev@dpdk.org" , "Jolliffe, Ian (Wind River)" , "Wiles, Keith" , "techboard@dpdk.org" Thread-Topic: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 00/17] Wind River Systems AVP PMD vs virtio? Thread-Index: AQHSnXq0IFqzmm4b8USABuMXMbHsdqGV7rsAgADcJQA= Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 03:18:41 +0000 Message-ID: <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA7232038D@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <1488414008-162839-1-git-send-email-allain.legacy@windriver.com> <4b3a0ff4-3d19-8e4b-0cbf-2a08e6433285@6wind.com> <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA7231E927@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> <78399437.9zD9LecKHj@xps13> <516e9e6b-0a37-4b3c-ee06-119b317da1fc@6wind.com> In-Reply-To: <516e9e6b-0a37-4b3c-ee06-119b317da1fc@6wind.com> Accept-Language: en-IE, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-titus-metadata-40: eyJDYXRlZ29yeUxhYmVscyI6IiIsIk1ldGFkYXRhIjp7Im5zIjoiaHR0cDpcL1wvd3d3LnRpdHVzLmNvbVwvbnNcL0ludGVsMyIsImlkIjoiMzg1MTVkMTctMGY1Mi00NmNjLTgwMWUtNzA5MGM3YzVhMmRkIiwicHJvcHMiOlt7Im4iOiJDVFBDbGFzc2lmaWNhdGlvbiIsInZhbHMiOlt7InZhbHVlIjoiQ1RQX0lDIn1dfV19LCJTdWJqZWN0TGFiZWxzIjpbXSwiVE1DVmVyc2lvbiI6IjE2LjIuMTEuMCIsIlRydXN0ZWRMYWJlbEhhc2giOiJkSzBvZ3FJWWIrdzlHTFZ2OFY2MW9MUm5PQmNWMW5vRkdcL3JTVUV6azhsND0ifQ== x-ctpclassification: CTP_IC x-originating-ip: [163.33.239.182] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 00/17] Wind River Systems AVP PMD vs virtio? 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 03:18:47 -0000 > From: Vincent JARDIN [mailto:vincent.jardin@6wind.com] >=20 > Le 15/03/2017 =E0 11:55, Thomas Monjalon a =E9crit : > >> I'd suggest that this is a good topic for the next Tech Board > meeting. > > I agree Tim. > > CC'ing techboard to add this item to the agenda of the next meeting. >=20 > Frankly, I disagree, it is missing some discussions on the list. I think the discussion on the mailing list is at an impasse and it won't be= resolved there. I think the Tech Board needs to consider several issues: - What are the requirements for a new PMD to be accepted? For example, you'= re asking for performance data in this case, when this hasn't been a requir= ement for other PMDs. - Should there be different requirements for PMDs for virtual devices versu= s physical devices? - Based on these criteria, should the AVP PMD be accepted or not?