Le 10 mars 2016 01:06, "Thomas Monjalon" a
?crit :
>
> 2016-03-02 23:35, Thomas Monjalon:
> > 2016-03-02 12:21, Thomas Monjalon:
> > > 2016-03-02 11:47, Vincent JARDIN:
> > > > Le 02/03/2016 09:27, Panu Matilainen a ?crit :
> > > > >>> I'd like to see these be merged.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Jay
2016-03-02 23:35, Thomas Monjalon:
> 2016-03-02 12:21, Thomas Monjalon:
> > 2016-03-02 11:47, Vincent JARDIN:
> > > Le 02/03/2016 09:27, Panu Matilainen a ?crit :
> > > >>> I'd like to see these be merged.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Jay
> > > >>
> > > >> The code is really not ready. I am okay with
On 3/3/2016 4:59 PM, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Mar 2016 10:11:57 +
> Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>
>> On 3/2/2016 10:18 PM, Jay Rolette wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 8:02 PM, Stephen Hemminger
>>> mailto:stephen at networkplumber.org>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, 29 Feb 2016
On 03/03/2016 12:05 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> On 3/3/2016 8:31 AM, Panu Matilainen wrote:
>> On 03/03/2016 12:35 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
>>> 2016-03-02 12:21, Thomas Monjalon:
2016-03-02 11:47, Vincent JARDIN:
> Le 02/03/2016 09:27, Panu Matilainen a ?crit :
I'd like to see
2016-03-03 10:05, Ferruh Yigit:
> On 3/3/2016 8:31 AM, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> > On 03/03/2016 12:35 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> >> 2016-03-02 12:21, Thomas Monjalon:
> >>> 2016-03-02 11:47, Vincent JARDIN:
> Le 02/03/2016 09:27, Panu Matilainen a ?crit :
> >>> I'd like to see these be
On 03/03/2016 12:35 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 2016-03-02 12:21, Thomas Monjalon:
>> 2016-03-02 11:47, Vincent JARDIN:
>>> Le 02/03/2016 09:27, Panu Matilainen a ?crit :
>> I'd like to see these be merged.
>>
>> Jay
>
> The code is really not ready. I am okay with cooperative
On 3/2/2016 10:18 PM, Jay Rolette wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 8:02 PM, Stephen Hemminger
> mailto:stephen at networkplumber.org>> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 29 Feb 2016 08:33:25 -0600
> Jay Rolette mailto:rolette at infiniteio.com>>
> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 5:06 AM,
On 3/3/2016 8:31 AM, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> On 03/03/2016 12:35 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
>> 2016-03-02 12:21, Thomas Monjalon:
>>> 2016-03-02 11:47, Vincent JARDIN:
Le 02/03/2016 09:27, Panu Matilainen a ?crit :
>>> I'd like to see these be merged.
>>>
>>> Jay
>>
>>
2016-03-02 12:21, Thomas Monjalon:
> 2016-03-02 11:47, Vincent JARDIN:
> > Le 02/03/2016 09:27, Panu Matilainen a ?crit :
> > >>> I'd like to see these be merged.
> > >>>
> > >>> Jay
> > >>
> > >> The code is really not ready. I am okay with cooperative development
> > >> but the current code
> On Mar 2, 2016, at 6:03 AM, Vincent JARDIN
> wrote:
>
> Le 02/03/2016 11:51, Jim Thompson a ?crit :
>> Can we take it as a requirement to support FreeBSD this time around?
>
> Of course, all OS should be on the loop, but I guess, it would be per kernel
> specific. What is ethtool on
On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 8:02 PM, Stephen Hemminger <
stephen at networkplumber.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Feb 2016 08:33:25 -0600
> Jay Rolette wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 5:06 AM, Thomas Monjalon <
> thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > > I totally agree with Avi's
Le 02/03/2016 11:51, Jim Thompson a ?crit :
> Can we take it as a requirement to support FreeBSD this time around?
Of course, all OS should be on the loop, but I guess, it would be per
kernel specific. What is ethtool on FreeBSD? Or can you start porting
ethtool on FreeBSD?
2016-03-02 11:47, Vincent JARDIN:
> Le 02/03/2016 09:27, Panu Matilainen a ?crit :
> >>> I'd like to see these be merged.
> >>>
> >>> Jay
> >>
> >> The code is really not ready. I am okay with cooperative development
> >> but the current code needs to go into a staging type tree.
> >> No
Le 02/03/2016 09:27, Panu Matilainen a ?crit :
>>> I'd like to see these be merged.
>>>
>>> Jay
>>
>> The code is really not ready. I am okay with cooperative development
>> but the current code needs to go into a staging type tree.
>> No compatibility, no ABI guarantees, more of an RFC.
>> Don't
On 03/02/2016 04:02 AM, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Feb 2016 08:33:25 -0600
> Jay Rolette wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 5:06 AM, Thomas Monjalon > 6wind.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>> I totally agree with Avi's comments.
>>> This topic is really important for the future of DPDK.
> On Mar 2, 2016, at 4:47 AM, Vincent JARDIN
> wrote:
>
> Le 02/03/2016 09:27, Panu Matilainen a ?crit :
I'd like to see these be merged.
Jay
>>>
>>> The code is really not ready. I am okay with cooperative development
>>> but the current code needs to go into a staging type
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 08:33:25AM -0600, Jay Rolette wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 5:06 AM, Thomas Monjalon 6wind.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> > I totally agree with Avi's comments.
> > This topic is really important for the future of DPDK.
> > So I think we must give some time to continue the
On Mon, 29 Feb 2016 08:33:25 -0600
Jay Rolette wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 5:06 AM, Thomas Monjalon 6wind.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> > I totally agree with Avi's comments.
> > This topic is really important for the future of DPDK.
> > So I think we must give some time to continue the
On 2/29/2016 8:11 PM, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Jan 2016 16:24:07 +
> Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>
>> +static int
>> +kcp_ioctl_release(unsigned int ioctl_num, unsigned long ioctl_param)
>> +{
>> +int ret = -EINVAL;
>> +struct kcp_dev *dev;
>> +struct kcp_dev *n;
>> +
On 02/29/2016 05:27 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 2016-02-29 17:19, Panu Matilainen:
>> On 02/29/2016 01:35 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>>> On 2/29/2016 11:06 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
Hi,
I totally agree with Avi's comments.
This topic is really important for the future of DPDK.
On 02/29/2016 01:35 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> On 2/29/2016 11:06 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I totally agree with Avi's comments.
>> This topic is really important for the future of DPDK.
>> So I think we must give some time to continue the discussion
>> and have netdev involved in the
2016-02-29 17:19, Panu Matilainen:
> On 02/29/2016 01:35 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> > On 2/29/2016 11:06 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >> I totally agree with Avi's comments.
> >> This topic is really important for the future of DPDK.
> >> So I think we must give some time to continue the
On 2/29/2016 11:35 AM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> On 2/29/2016 11:06 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I totally agree with Avi's comments.
>> This topic is really important for the future of DPDK.
>> So I think we must give some time to continue the discussion
>> and have netdev involved in the
On 2/29/2016 11:39 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
>
>
> On 02/29/2016 01:27 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>> On 2/29/2016 10:58 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
>>>
>>> On 02/29/2016 12:43 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
On 2/29/2016 9:43 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 02/28/2016 10:16 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>> On
On 02/29/2016 01:27 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> On 2/29/2016 10:58 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
>>
>> On 02/29/2016 12:43 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>>> On 2/29/2016 9:43 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 02/28/2016 10:16 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> On 2/28/2016 3:34 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
>> On 01/27/2016
On 02/29/2016 12:43 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> On 2/29/2016 9:43 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
>> On 02/28/2016 10:16 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>>> On 2/28/2016 3:34 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 01/27/2016 06:24 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> This kernel module is based on KNI module, but this one is
On Wed, 27 Jan 2016 16:24:07 +
Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> +static int
> +kcp_ioctl_release(unsigned int ioctl_num, unsigned long ioctl_param)
> +{
> + int ret = -EINVAL;
> + struct kcp_dev *dev;
> + struct kcp_dev *n;
> + char name[RTE_KCP_NAMESIZE];
> + unsigned int instance
Hi,
I totally agree with Avi's comments.
This topic is really important for the future of DPDK.
So I think we must give some time to continue the discussion
and have netdev involved in the choices done.
As a consequence, these series should not be merged in the release 16.04.
Thanks for continuing
On 02/28/2016 10:16 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> On 2/28/2016 3:34 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
>> On 01/27/2016 06:24 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>>> This kernel module is based on KNI module, but this one is stripped
>>> version of it and only for control messages, no data transfer
>>> functionality provided.
On 2/29/2016 11:06 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> Hi,
> I totally agree with Avi's comments.
> This topic is really important for the future of DPDK.
> So I think we must give some time to continue the discussion
> and have netdev involved in the choices done.
> As a consequence, these series should
On 2/29/2016 10:58 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
>
>
> On 02/29/2016 12:43 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>> On 2/29/2016 9:43 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
>>> On 02/28/2016 10:16 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
On 2/28/2016 3:34 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 01/27/2016 06:24 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>> This kernel
On 2/29/2016 9:43 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 02/28/2016 10:16 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>> On 2/28/2016 3:34 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
>>> On 01/27/2016 06:24 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
This kernel module is based on KNI module, but this one is stripped
version of it and only for control
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 5:06 AM, Thomas Monjalon
wrote:
> Hi,
> I totally agree with Avi's comments.
> This topic is really important for the future of DPDK.
> So I think we must give some time to continue the discussion
> and have netdev involved in the choices done.
> As a consequence, these
On 2/28/2016 3:34 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 01/27/2016 06:24 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>> This kernel module is based on KNI module, but this one is stripped
>> version of it and only for control messages, no data transfer
>> functionality provided.
>>
>> This Linux kernel module helps userspace
On 01/27/2016 06:24 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> This kernel module is based on KNI module, but this one is stripped
> version of it and only for control messages, no data transfer
> functionality provided.
>
> This Linux kernel module helps userspace application create virtual
> interfaces and when
On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 09:49:49AM +, Remy Horton wrote:
> Comments inline
>
> ..Remy
>
>
> On 27/01/2016 16:24, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> > This kernel module is based on KNI module, but this one is stripped
> > version of it and only for control messages, no data transfer
> > functionality
Comments inline
..Remy
On 27/01/2016 16:24, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> This kernel module is based on KNI module, but this one is stripped
> version of it and only for control messages, no data transfer
> functionality provided.
>
> This Linux kernel module helps userspace application create
This kernel module is based on KNI module, but this one is stripped
version of it and only for control messages, no data transfer
functionality provided.
This Linux kernel module helps userspace application create virtual
interfaces and when a control command issued into that virtual
interface,
38 matches
Mail list logo
