From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 916CD2C52 for ; Mon, 29 Feb 2016 16:19:45 +0100 (CET) Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E4F987F097; Mon, 29 Feb 2016 15:19:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from sopuli.koti.laiskiainen.org (vpn1-7-93.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.7.93]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u1TFJhTN007740; Mon, 29 Feb 2016 10:19:43 -0500 To: Ferruh Yigit , 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: Panu Matilainen Message-ID: <56D4618E.4090101@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 17:19:42 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <56D42CE5.5000901@intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.68 on 10.5.11.24 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 15:19:45 -0000 On 02/29/2016 01:35 PM, 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. So make the work available from a separate git repo and make it easy for people to experiment with it. Code doesn't have to be in a release for the sake of experimenting, and removing code is much harder than not adding it in the first place, witness KNI. - Panu -