From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wg0-f50.google.com (mail-wg0-f50.google.com [74.125.82.50]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30A0C3195 for ; Fri, 24 Apr 2015 09:47:59 +0200 (CEST) Received: by wgin8 with SMTP id n8so41844482wgi.0 for ; Fri, 24 Apr 2015 00:47:59 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=p/WhJ6e/ua+gvXKjzDmTg0oOMKDmf7NwtoqpkTdJwvI=; b=GEV3tHLeZhhAbl1PNLYgMBmN8O1LxsqKOyoyYkrHS6LOXm2hLhVFO2G8By5UZ57b1U 2z6yEmR6ROwswQBTRbNHJBxJ6Nkg1chiygq4DcXPC7326FhOqcDtv/EI3AGPaBqeZnbH 1xjHDx7ZzXq7pdAiDK5t9kYsID8L0VfNACXJt/QaU1nbgzZbSBwKXTdEbSkK6xDHry7u doGiu48Hp7xzd36RuVeWDpMacEyvpLBQGqif2uXnbnsXKU0aM/WD+bfvwD/+5tpjIumE mdXgLVUD33OgN9pFMv13fPz9MxwRRL5Vh5PbWyLtXjI+Q1Xh+RpiIcNmOsUchxGpn9Zt D+iA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.216.103 with SMTP id op7mr1387416wic.90.1429861679051; Fri, 24 Apr 2015 00:47:59 -0700 (PDT) Sender: lukego@gmail.com Received: by 10.27.134.198 with HTTP; Fri, 24 Apr 2015 00:47:58 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA54D1A917@IRSMSX102.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA54D1A917@IRSMSX102.ger.corp.intel.com> Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2015 09:47:58 +0200 X-Google-Sender-Auth: -Vz6TjkoJ8XaN853CR_KmwU5aJo Message-ID: From: Luke Gorrie To: "O'Driscoll, Tim" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15 Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Beyond DPDK 2.0 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: Fri, 24 Apr 2015 07:47:59 -0000 Hi Tim, On 16 April 2015 at 12:38, O'Driscoll, Tim wrote: > Following the launch of DPDK by Intel as an internal development project, > the launch of dpdk.org by 6WIND in 2013, and the first DPDK RPM packages > for Fedora in 2014, 6WIND, Red Hat and Intel would like to prepare for > future releases after DPDK 2.0 by starting a discussion on its evolution. > Anyone is welcome to join this initiative. > Thank you for the open invitation. I have a couple of questions about the long term of DPDK: 1. How will DPDK manage overlap with other project over time? In some ways DPDK is growing more overlap with other projects e.g. forking/rewriting functionality from Linux (e.g. ixgbe), FreeBSD (e.g. Broadcom PMD), GLIBC (e.g. memcpy). In other ways DPDK is delegating functionality to external systems instead e.g. the bifurcated driver (delegate to kernel) and Mellanox PMD (delegate to vendor shared library). How is this going to play out over the long term? And is there an existential risk that it will end up being easier to port the good bits of DPDK into the kernel than the rest of the good bits of the kernel into DPDK? 2. How will DPDK users justify contributing to DPDK upstream? Engineers in network equipment vendors want to contribute to open source, but what is the incentive for the companies to support this? This would be easy if DPDK were GPL'd (they are compelled) or if everybody were dynamically linking with the upstream libdpdk (can't have private patches). However, in a world where DPDK is BSD-licensed and statically linked, is it not both cheaper and competitively advantageous to keep fixes and optimizations in house? Today the community is benefiting immensely from the contributions of companies like 6WIND and Brocade, but I wonder if this going to be the exception or the rule. That's all from me. Thanks for listening :-). Cheers, -Luke