On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 10:45:07AM +, Gonzalez Monroy, Sergio wrote:
> > From: Matthew Hall [mailto:mhall at mhcomputing.net]
> > Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2014 8:50 PM
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 09:18:23AM +, Gonzalez Monroy, Sergio wrote:
> > > I would say that D) is a good balanc
On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 10:45:07AM +, Gonzalez Monroy, Sergio wrote:
> That flow work still presents some issues as they may be features that are
> incompatible between each other and would need to be in different DPDK
> copies.
>
> Regards,
> Sergio
So I think the two questions are:
1) Wi
> From: Matthew Hall [mailto:mhall at mhcomputing.net]
> Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2014 8:50 PM
>
> On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 09:18:23AM +, Gonzalez Monroy, Sergio wrote:
> > I would say that D) is a good balance, although not being the simplest.
>
> A, or D. Depending on things such as, "If
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 09:18:23AM +, Gonzalez Monroy, Sergio wrote:
> I would say that D) is a good balance, although not being the simplest.
A, or D. Depending on things such as, "If you run the DPDK on Random Platform
X," where X could be something like Power CPUs or other weird stuff, wil
Hi,
Apologies for the previous email format, I seems like I misconfigured something
on my email-client.
In case people find it annoying to read with extra line spaces, here is the RFC
with fixed formatting:
I would like to propose an update on the way the libraries are being built on
DPDK.
M
Hi,
I would like to propose an update on the way the libraries are being built on
DPDK.
Motivation/Issues:
- No agreement on libraries to build (separated, combined, different grouping).
- People having issues building their applications cannot rely on the
information given by ldd when us
6 matches
Mail list logo
