From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EF1FC10F13 for ; Mon, 8 Apr 2019 13:58:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF95E2147A for ; Mon, 8 Apr 2019 13:58:18 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org DF95E2147A Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=dev-bounces@dpdk.org Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E86634CA6; Mon, 8 Apr 2019 15:58:17 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-vk1-f177.google.com (mail-vk1-f177.google.com [209.85.221.177]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 046874C8F for ; Mon, 8 Apr 2019 15:58:15 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-vk1-f177.google.com with SMTP id x84so3046325vkd.1 for ; Mon, 08 Apr 2019 06:58:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=crcqUE4u8CDmZqpLTxyYy7xjD+aCtt95F+h8PJAcdEA=; b=mSFgyxVbObo1G5uDSYbBkvVIw3iVtFjATtKT8s2pVibZ0rZRHUk1WlTyVDUHldsgKQ eAKBxOUw7fBTBYopGbLzDWewnut68rYdFkw3A+i+plP/Q7Wzp6Zfn7CI71GDB8Zw+VSe nMx6o8Y0PeR9lMf7kBFGGKsmL/Uh+z3+3ecUYhJAhyGBA29uYWqtlfpSeOCFHHmQt2pG z+MtsACYIiW+UEjG9Kapg8+ucRZ//Q9AXAS7Bd6Iq5Nr4SoHWEzbnbIojX+xC0GGyYN4 aSf3Be0MHfUo1Hue1FmdpUx/dgFh80IPiWqS00ymg6sM4Swtqz/Zvzssi5w+0dt6f/TR KKSg== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVulMK1b115kTL1lXKEVfMeWj19FecwJhKhsZDZ6fd/iVSXg95V D/Nkwd42o0UAQQ52IOdWA9qncSqA11bhPk94dPY4PA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqy6oo729sfA5H/ocyDesPO9gd+Y74op06wjcVYBLFamkKWNVJyjjvmxupipiO8/wHxn0qV0S+uApmLXcNrTlWg= X-Received: by 2002:a1f:7d4e:: with SMTP id y75mr16118274vkc.53.1554731895175; Mon, 08 Apr 2019 06:58:15 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <455a61b4-891d-eaaf-d784-2be884bcacbd@intel.com> <7166381.CkH77a7QuE@xps> <5e27f573-bbf5-30f1-73ee-d35fc5191632@ashroe.eu> <6a9bf695-b287-9e5e-358c-d6c3f93db045@intel.com> In-Reply-To: <6a9bf695-b287-9e5e-358c-d6c3f93db045@intel.com> From: David Marchand Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2019 15:58:03 +0200 Message-ID: To: "Burakov, Anatoly" Cc: Ray Kinsella , Thomas Monjalon , techboard@dpdk.org, Bruce Richardson , dev , Kevin Traynor Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15 Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-techboard] DPDK ABI/API Stability X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 3:39 PM Burakov, Anatoly wrote: > As a concrete proposal, my number one dream would be to see multiprocess > gone. I also recall desire for "DPDK to be more lightweight", and i > maintain that DPDK *cannot* be lightweight if we are to support > multiprocess - we can have one or the other, but not both. However, > realistically, i don't think dropping multiprocess is ever going to > happen - not only it is too entrenched in DPDK use cases, it is actually > quite useful despite its flaws. > Well, honestly, I'd like to hear about this. What are the real usecases for multi process support? Do we have even a single opensource project that uses it? -- David Marchand