[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 0/2] slow data path communication between DPDK port and Linux

Thomas Monjalon thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com
Wed Mar 16 16:15:24 CET 2016


2016-03-16 17:03, Panu Matilainen:
> On 03/16/2016 03:58 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > 2016-03-16 15:15, Panu Matilainen:
> >> What I really would like to see is a clear policy regarding kernel
> >> modules in DPDK. I certainly am in no position to dictate one, and
> >> that's why I've been asking questions and throwing around crazy (or not)
> >> ideas around the topic.
> >
> > I think the consensus is to avoid new kernel module,
> > but allow them in a staging directory while being discussed upstream.
> 
> To me the more interesting question is: what happens after that?
> As in, if upstream says no, does it mean axe from dpdk, no ifs and buts? 
> If accepted upstream, does a version of the module still live within 
> dpdk codebase (for example to provide the version for older kernel 
> versions, I dont see that as unreasonable at all)?
> 
> 
> > About the existing out-of-tree kernel modules, we must continue trying
> > to obsolete them with upstream work.
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> >
> > If you feel the consensus must be clearly stated and acked,
> > please send a patch for doc/guides/contributing/design.rst.
> 
> I'll be happy to, once we have a clear consensus on what the policy 
> actually is.

Sending a patch is the most efficient way of having the discussion
happens with more contributors.
We, as a technical community, take some patch-based decisions ;)



More information about the dev mailing list