On Sat, 30 May 2015 19:40:46 +0000 "Wang, Liang-min" <liang-min.wang at intel.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, 30 May 2015 16:16:01 +0000 > "Wang, Liang-min" <liang-min.wang at intel.com> wrote: > > > >The design decision is to keep ethdev as THE interface for all the > > >external API, so ethtool APIs are designed based upon ethdev API. At the > > >meantime, the ethtool APIs are designed to enable users to migrate designs > > >based upon kernel-space ethtool. The open/close/start are put in place to > > >enable quick migration. > > > >But there is no open/close/start in ethtool in kernel. > >Anyway ethtool is currently on the disfavored list from kernel developers. > >What about netlink or something better? > > > >Remember each new API creates more long term compatiablity and ABI issues. > >So I am against introducing any new API that does the same thing as existing > >API's. > > Just to clarify APIs supported by this ethtool api: there are net_open and > net_stop and no net_start. Both functions are put in place to support > net_device_ops::ndo_open and net_device_ops::ndo_close as defined in > linux/netdevice.h I get the feeling there is some use case you are not telling the list about. What kind of application would use this api only. Why or how would DPDK application be involved in net_device_ops. If you are planning on putting DPDK in the kernel there are lots of other issues including kernel ABI stability and licensing that need to be dealt with.
