From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
Received: from mga03.intel.com (mga03.intel.com [134.134.136.65])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 395982C31
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Mon, 29 Feb 2016 12:35:04 +0100 (CET)
Received: from orsmga003.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.27])
 by orsmga103.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 29 Feb 2016 03:35:03 -0800
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.22,520,1449561600"; d="scan'208";a="755154249"
Received: from fyigit-mobl1.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.237.220.186])
 ([10.237.220.186])
 by orsmga003.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 29 Feb 2016 03:35:02 -0800
To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
References: <1453911849-16562-1-git-send-email-ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
 <56D420E5.9010802@intel.com> <56D42462.3020905@scylladb.com>
 <1945473.Tiatd2m80T@xps13>
From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110
Message-ID: <56D42CE5.5000901@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 11:35:01 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1945473.Tiatd2m80T@xps13>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: dev@dpdk.org, Avi Kivity <avi@scylladb.com>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/3] kcp: add kernel control path kernel
	module
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 11:35:04 -0000

On 2/29/2016 11:06 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> Hi,
> I totally agree with Avi's comments.
> This topic is really important for the future of DPDK.
> So I think we must give some time to continue the discussion
> and have netdev involved in the choices done.
> As a consequence, these series should not be merged in the release 16.04.
> Thanks for continuing the work.
> 
Hi Thomas,

It is great to have some discussion and feedbacks.
But I doubt not merging in this release will help to have more discussion.

It is better to have them in this release and let people experiment it,
this gives more chance to better discussion.

These features are replacement of KNI, and KNI is not intended to be
removed in this release, so who are using KNI as solution can continue
to use KNI and can test KCP/KDP, so that we can get more feedbacks.

Thanks,
ferruh