From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 00/29] Support VFD and DPDK PF + kernel VF
 on i40e
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2016 15:31:45 +0000
Message-ID: <23012b3e-b02a-d5ff-762b-be352766c274@intel.com>
References: <20161216143919.4909-1-ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
 <5846f66b-9a83-faa6-3de1-c7ae12236201@6wind.com>
 <4341B239C0EFF9468EE453F9E9F4604D3C5B7FE2@shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com>
 <7801511.7yxptAly8J@xps13>
 <4341B239C0EFF9468EE453F9E9F4604D3C5B8459@shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com>
 <42c7689f-a827-aa3c-777b-cfc78107d63e@6wind.com>
 <4341B239C0EFF9468EE453F9E9F4604D3C5B8BD7@shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com>
 <932774d3-e0f7-7b44-1635-9015b8be6c0e@6wind.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>, "Wu, Jingjing" <jingjing.wu@intel.com>,
 "Zhang, Helin" <helin.zhang@intel.com>
To: Vincent JARDIN <vincent.jardin@6wind.com>,
 "Chen, Jing D" <jing.d.chen@intel.com>,
 Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mga01.intel.com (mga01.intel.com [192.55.52.88])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54F60FBA7
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue, 20 Dec 2016 16:32:16 +0100 (CET)
In-Reply-To: <932774d3-e0f7-7b44-1635-9015b8be6c0e@6wind.com>
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

On 12/20/2016 3:18 PM, Vincent JARDIN wrote:
> Le 20/12/2016 à 05:48, Chen, Jing D a écrit :
>> That's a collaboration with another team. we'll follow-up that but not guarantee
>> it will happen.
>> May I ask if my reply make it clear? Still NAC for this patch?
> 
> Yes still nack, I am not confident with this PF approach since you are 
> breaking Linux PF behavior. It does not provide guarantees with PF. 
> Something is missing to guarantee the compatibilities.

Hi Vincent, Mark,

What do you think separating the mentioned patch (patch 24/29) from
patchset and submit as a standalone patch, so that it can be discussed
more without blocking the patchset?

Thanks,
ferruh

> 
> Thank you,
>    Vincent
>