From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga01.intel.com (mga01.intel.com [192.55.52.88]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F9096C9C for ; Mon, 29 Feb 2016 16:05:18 +0100 (CET) Received: from fmsmga003.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.29]) by fmsmga101.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 29 Feb 2016 07:05:10 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.22,521,1449561600"; d="scan'208";a="661195277" Received: from fyigit-mobl1.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.237.220.186]) ([10.237.220.186]) by FMSMGA003.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 29 Feb 2016 07:05:09 -0800 To: Thomas Monjalon References: <1453911849-16562-1-git-send-email-ferruh.yigit@intel.com> <56D420E5.9010802@intel.com> <56D42462.3020905@scylladb.com> <1945473.Tiatd2m80T@xps13> <56D42CE5.5000901@intel.com> From: Ferruh Yigit X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110 Message-ID: <56D45E23.60802@intel.com> Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 15:05:07 +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: <56D42CE5.5000901@intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: dev@dpdk.org, Avi Kivity 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 15:05:18 -0000 On 2/29/2016 11:35 AM, Ferruh Yigit wrote: > 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. > One more thing, overall reason of working on KCP/KDP is reduce KNI maintenance cost, and add more features, not to add more maintenance cost. The most maintenance cost of KNI is because of Linux network drivers in it, which KCP removes them, so there is an improvement. Although it is not as good as removing them completely, KCP/KDP is one step closer to be upstreamed than existing KNI. Thanks, ferruh