On 3/14/2016 5:40 PM, Jay Rolette wrote:
> Is there some technical reason or is it just the push-back you are
> getting from some of the maintainers?
>
The majority of the discussion on the list was based on not having
kernel modules, which cloud the desired technical discussion.
As a result of t
On 3/9/2016 11:41 AM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> This patch sent to keep record of latest status of the work.
>
>
> This work is to make DPDK ports more visible and to enable using common
> Linux tools to configure DPDK ports.
>
> Patch is based on KNI but contains only control functionality of it,
>
Is there some technical reason or is it just the push-back you are getting
from some of the maintainers?
I chimed in on one of the other threads already, but I'm extremely
disappointed that usability and serviceability improvements to existing
DPDK capabilities (KNI) are getting blocked like this.
This patch sent to keep record of latest status of the work.
This work is to make DPDK ports more visible and to enable using common
Linux tools to configure DPDK ports.
Patch is based on KNI but contains only control functionality of it,
also this patch does not include any Linux kernel network
4 matches
Mail list logo
