> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ilya Maximets <i.maxim...@ovn.org>
> Sent: Monday, April 25, 2022 10:46 PM
> To: Mcnamara, John <john.mcnam...@intel.com>; Hu, Jiayu
> <jiayu...@intel.com>; Maxime Coquelin <maxime.coque...@redhat.com>; Van
> Haaren, Harry <harry.van.haa...@intel.com>; Morten Brørup
> <m...@smartsharesystems.com>; Richardson, Bruce
> <bruce.richard...@intel.com>
> Cc: i.maxim...@ovn.org; Pai G, Sunil <sunil.pa...@intel.com>; Stokes,
> Ian <ian.sto...@intel.com>; Ferriter, Cian <cian.ferri...@intel.com>;
> ovs-dev@openvswitch.org; d...@dpdk.org; O'Driscoll, Tim
> <tim.odrisc...@intel.com>; Finn, Emma <emma.f...@intel.com>
> Subject: Re: OVS DPDK DMA-Dev library/Design Discussion
>
> ...
>
> FWIW, I think it makes sense to PoC and test options that are going to
> be simply unavailable going forward if not explored now.
> Especially because we don't have any good solutions anyway ("Deferral
> of Work" is architecturally wrong solution for OVS).
I agree that there is value in doing PoCs and we have been doing that for over
a year based on different proposals and none of them show the potential of the
Deferral of Work approach. It isn't productive to keep building PoCs
indefinitely; at some point we need to make progress with merging a specific
solution upstream.
> > Let's have another call so that we can move towards a single solution
> that the DPDK and OVS communities agree on. I'll set up a call for next
> week in a similar time slot to the previous one.
>
> Is there any particular reason we can't use a mailing list to discuss
> that topic further?
The discussion can continue on the mailing list. It just seemed more efficient
and interactive to discuss this in a meeting.
John
--
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
d...@openvswitch.org
https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
