On Fri, 14 Jan 2022 at 18:44, Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@intel.com> wrote:
> On 1/14/2022 4:24 PM, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > > On Fri, 14 Jan 2022 17:18:19 +0200 > > Tudor Cornea <tudor.cor...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> +module_param(min_scheduling_interval, long, 0644); > >> +MODULE_PARM_DESC(min_scheduling_interval, > >> +"\t\tKni thread min scheduling interval (default=100 microseconds):\n" > >> +"\t\t" > >> +); > >> + > >> +module_param(max_scheduling_interval, long, 0644); > >> +MODULE_PARM_DESC(max_scheduling_interval, > >> +"\t\tKni thread max scheduling interval (default=200 microseconds):\n" > >> +"\t\t" > >> +); > > > > Please don't add more bad module parameter strings. > > The KNI author did something no other kernel modules do with tabs > > and double spacing, stop this bogus stuff. > > > > The patch is good, let's not block it for the module parameter string, > all can be fixed with another patch. > > Can you please give a sample what is a common way of it, me or Tudor can > do the patch? > > I agree that the module parameter string is in non-standard format. I was planning to send a follow-up patch, which would correct the description for all of the KNI parameters (including the two new parameters that the current patch would add) in one shot. > > Is there any reason you have to use KNI at all. > > KNI is broken on many levels and is not fixable. > > What about virtio or tap? > > We've run some tests with tap interfaces and found the performance to not be good enough for our use. We're going to experiment with virtio_user in the future. I'm aware that there is a long term plan to deprecate the KNI.
