On 12/3/2018 2:06 PM, Igor Ryzhov wrote: > Hi Ferruh, > > What about the patch? > > I also support dropping ethtool for ixgbe and i40e, but to save generic > ethtool_ops > with .get_link implementation, because it's an essential function that works > correctly > after proper implementation of carrier status that was merged into 18.11. > > Also, other ethtool operations may be implemented in a driver-independent way > using > the same concept as for netdev_ops.
"carrier status" relies on the sample app support also relies on kni net_device sysfs interface. It is good target to have ethtool support in a driver-independent way, please share more details and lets discuss them. > > On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 4:09 PM Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@intel.com > <mailto:ferruh.yi...@intel.com>> wrote: > > On 11/30/2018 11:38 PM, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > > On Fri, 30 Nov 2018 22:47:50 +0300 > > Igor Ryzhov <iryz...@nfware.com <mailto:iryz...@nfware.com>> wrote: > > > >> Current implementation of kni_ethtool_ops just uses corresponding > >> ethtool_ops function of underlying driver for all functions except for > >> .get_link. This commit sets kni->net_dev->ethtool_ops directly to the > >> ethtool_ops of the corresponding driver. > >> > >> For unknown drivers (all but ixgbe and i40e) we still use > >> kni_ethtool_ops with implemented .get_link function. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Igor Ryzhov <iryz...@nfware.com > <mailto:iryz...@nfware.com>> > > > > Why does KNI still support ethtool which: > > 1. Only works on a subset of devices > > 2. Requires a 3rd implmentation of the HW device (Linux, DPDK, and > KNI) > > +1 to drop ethtool support, last time we tried concern was anybody may be > using > it, perhaps we can try again. > > > > > Then again why does KNI exist at all? What is missing from virtio user > which > > is faster anyway. > > >
