Re: [dpdk-dev] Best Practices for PMD Verification before Upstream Requests

[Shepard Siegel <shepard.siegel@atomicrules.com>]

Thomas and DPDK devs,

Almost a year into our DPDK development, we have shipped an alpha version
of our "Arkville" product. We've thankful for all the support from this
group. Most everyone has suggested "get your code upstream ASAP"; but our
team is cut from the "if it isn't tested, it doesn't work" cloth. We now
have some solid miles on our Arkville PMD driver "ark" with 16.07. Mostly
testpmd and a suite of user apps; dts not so much, only because our use
case is a little different. We expect almost all of our contribution would
land under $dpdk/drivers/net/ark . We are looking past 16.11 to possibly
jump on board when the 17.02 window opens in December. One question that
came up is "Should we do a thorough port and regression against 16.11 as a
precursor to up streaming at 17.02?". Constructive feedback always welcome!

-Shep

Shepard Siegel, CTO
atomicrules.com

On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 9:07 AM, Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
wrote:

> 2016-08-17 08:34, Shepard Siegel:
> > Atomic Rules is new to the DPDK community. We attended the DPDK Summit
> last
> > week and received terrific advice and encouragement. We are developing a
> > DPDK PMD for our Arkville product which is a DPDK-aware data mover,
> capable
> > of marshaling packets between FPGA/ASIC gates with AXI interfaces on one
> > side, and the DPDK API/ABI on the other. Arkville plus a MAC looks like a
> > line-rate-agnostic bare-bones L2 NIC. We have testpmd and our first DPDK
> > applications running using our early-alpha Arkville PMD.
>
> Welcome :)
>
> Any release targeted for upstream support?
>
> <snip>
>