From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Lu, Wenzhuo" Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 00/29] Support VFD and DPDK PF + kernel VF on i40e Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2016 00:50:23 +0000 Message-ID: <6A0DE07E22DDAD4C9103DF62FEBC09093B54C5E3@shsmsx102.ccr.corp.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> <23012b3e-b02a-d5ff-762b-be352766c274@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" , "Wu, Jingjing" , "Zhang, Helin" To: "Yigit, Ferruh" , Vincent JARDIN , "Chen, Jing D" , "Thomas Monjalon" Return-path: Received: from mga02.intel.com (mga02.intel.com [134.134.136.20]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B643FBF4 for ; Wed, 21 Dec 2016 01:50:27 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <23012b3e-b02a-d5ff-762b-be352766c274@intel.com> Content-Language: en-US List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" Hi all, > -----Original Message----- > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Ferruh Yigit > Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2016 11:32 PM > To: Vincent JARDIN; Chen, Jing D; Thomas Monjalon > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Wu, Jingjing; Zhang, Helin > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 00/29] Support VFD and DPDK PF + kernel= VF > on i40e >=20 > On 12/20/2016 3:18 PM, Vincent JARDIN wrote: > > Le 20/12/2016 =E0 05:48, Chen, Jing D a =E9crit : > >> 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. >=20 > Hi Vincent, Mark, >=20 > What do you think separating the mentioned patch (patch 24/29) from patch= set > and submit as a standalone patch, so that it can be discussed more withou= t > blocking the patchset? +1 :) >=20 > Thanks, > ferruh >=20 > > > > Thank you, > > Vincent > >