2015-12-16 16:23, Burakov, Anatoly: > Hi Thomas, > > > > On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 09:53:18AM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote: > > > So it works. Is it acceptable? Useful? Sufficiently complete? Does > > > it imply deprecating the uio interface? I believe the feature that > > > started this discussion was support for MSI/X interrupts so that VFs > > > can support some kind of interrupt (uio only supports INTx since it > > > doesn't allow DMA). Implementing that would be the ultimate test of > > > whether this provides dpdk with not only a more consistent interface, > > > but the feature dpdk wants that's missing in uio. Thanks, > > Ferruh has done a great job so far testing Alex's patch, very few changes > from DPDK side seem to be required as far as existing functionality goes (not > sure about VF interrupts mentioned by Alex). However, one thing that concerns > me is usability. While it is true that no-IOMMU mode in VFIO would mean uio > interfaces could be deprecated in time, the no-iommu mode is way more hassle > than using igb_uio/uio_pci_generic because it will require a kernel recompile > as opposed to simply compiling and insmod'ding an out-of-tree driver. So, in > essence, if you don't want an IOMMU, it's becoming that much harder to use > DPDK. Would that be something DPDK is willing to live with in the absence of > uio interfaces?
Excuse me if I missed something obvious. Why a kernel compilation is needed?
