Agreed on both points. I'll submit a patchset to remove the l2fwd_fork example
and its user-guide, so it doesn't appear that DPDK supports this model. If
anyone on the ML disagrees, they can respond here or on the patch thread.
> -Original Message-
> From: Stephen Hemminger [mailto:step.
On Fri, 27 Jul 2018 17:03:48 +0200
Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 27/07/2018 15:46, Eads, Gage:
> > As this discussion has broad implications for DPDK, is it a good candidate
> > for a techboard meeting topic?
>
> We can discuss it in techboard, but usually we prefer discussing topics
> whose reso
27/07/2018 15:46, Eads, Gage:
> As this discussion has broad implications for DPDK, is it a good candidate
> for a techboard meeting topic?
We can discuss it in techboard, but usually we prefer discussing topics
whose resolution is not clear.
In this case, I think everybody agree with Anatoly, i
As this discussion has broad implications for DPDK, is it a good candidate for
a techboard meeting topic?
> -Original Message-
> From: Burakov, Anatoly
> Sent: Monday, July 16, 2018 10:09 AM
> To: Eads, Gage ; dev@dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: DPDK and forked processes
>
> On 16-Jul-18 4:00 P
On 16-Jul-18 4:00 PM, Eads, Gage wrote:
Hi all,
Does DPDK support forking secondary processes after executing
rte_eal_init()? The l2fwd_fork example and at least one application
(OpenEM: https://sourceforge.net/projects/eventmachine/) use this model,
and they do so by fixing up the EAL intern
Hi all,
Does DPDK support forking secondary processes after executing rte_eal_init()?
The l2fwd_fork example and at least one application (OpenEM:
https://sourceforge.net/projects/eventmachine/) use this model, and they do so
by fixing up the EAL internals (e.g. manually changing process_type f
6 matches
Mail list logo
