On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 2:33 AM, Panu Matilainen <pmati...@redhat.com> wrote: > On 04/13/2016 07:21 PM, Traynor, Kevin wrote: >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: dev [mailto:dev-boun...@openvswitch.org] On Behalf Of Panu >>> Matilainen >>> Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2016 8:50 AM >>> To: Weglicki, MichalX <michalx.wegli...@intel.com>; dev@openvswitch.org >>> Subject: Re: [ovs-dev] [PATCH] Update relevant artifacts to add support >>> for >>> DPDK 16.04. >>> >> >> [snip] >> >>> As an aside, I've been thinking maybe this is a case where OVS could >>> support both DPDK 2.2 and 16.04. I know its unprecedented but maybe that >>> could change, restricting OVS to just one DPDK version seems >>> unnecessarily strict when talking about differences this trivial. >> >> >> Judging by the ML, it's more commonly requested to use the current release >> of DPDK with the last release of OVS e.g. OVS 2.5 and DPDK 16.04, than >> people >> wanting OVS master with DPDK X-1. > > > That's actually just different angle of the same thing: people have > different needs. If DPDK 16.04 support was pulled into OVS 2.5, what about > those who were happy with DPDK 2.2 and dont want to (or cant) move? > >> Even for a trivial case like above - it would be ok now to add support for >> DPDK X-1 >> but if we then add OVS code to take advantage of new DPDK X features (e.g. >> vhost >> pmd) we'll end up with messy code. Also testing efforts would increase >> (double?), >> so I don't think we would get it without a cost. > > > Nothing is free of course. Note that I'm not suggesting OVS gets forever > burdened with ever increasing trail of ancient DPDK versions. Just that when > its trivial to support more than one, it perhaps should. When the older > versions get in the way of progress, just axe the support as necessary. > Perhaps also rephrasing "supported" towards something like "recommended > version is X.Y, but X.Y-1 is also known to work" along the way. > > Not that I have strong opinions on this, I'm just expecting distros will end > up/be required to forward-/backport bits and pieces *anyway* so the trouble > of doing so might as well go upstream to benefit everybody.
I would really like to see DPDK to continue to work towards having a stable API. That's the only real long term solution to this problem and I think our effort would be best spent on helping out with that where possible. I'd like to keep OVS clean in the meantime since this is hopefully a relatively short term issue. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
