On 3/16/2016 10:45 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 2016-03-16 10:26, Ferruh Yigit: >> On 3/16/2016 8:22 AM, Panu Matilainen wrote: >>> On 03/16/2016 10:19 AM, Ferruh Yigit wrote: >>>> On 3/16/2016 7:26 AM, Panu Matilainen wrote: >>>>> On 03/14/2016 05:32 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote: >>>>>> On 3/9/2016 11:17 AM, Ferruh Yigit wrote: >>>>>>> This patch sent to keep record of latest status of the work. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This is slow data path communication implementation based on existing >>>>>>> KNI. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Difference is: librte_kni converted into a PMD, kdp kernel module is >>>>>>> almost >>>>>>> same except all control path functionality removed and some >>>>>>> simplification done. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Motivation is to simplify slow path data communication. >>>>>>> Now any application can use this new PMD to send/get data to Linux >>>>>>> kernel. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> PMD supports two communication methods: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1) KDP kernel module >>>>>>> PMD initialization functions handles creating virtual interfaces (with >>>>>>> help of >>>>>>> kdp kernel module) and created FIFO. FIFO is used to share data between >>>>>>> userspace and kernelspace. This is default method. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2) tun/tap module >>>>>>> When KDP module is not inserted, PMD creates tap interface and transfers >>>>>>> packets using tap interface. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In long term this patch intends to replace the KNI and KNI will be >>>>>>> depreciated. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Self-NACK: Will work on another option that does not introduce new >>>>>> kernel module. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Hmm, care to elaborate a bit? The second mode of this PMD already was >>>>> free of external kernel modules. Do you mean you'll be just removing >>>>> mode 1) from the PMD or looking at something completely different? >>>>> >>>>> Just thinking that tun/tap PMD sounds like a useful thing to have, I >>>>> hope you're not abandoning that. >>>>> >>>> >>>> It will be KNI PMD. >>>> Plan is to have something like KDP, but with existing KNI kernel module. >>>> There will be tun/tap support as fallback. >>> >>> Hum, now I'm confused. I was under the impression everybody hated KNI >>> and wanted to get rid of it, and certainly not build future solutions on >>> top of it? >> >> We can't remove it. > > Why? > >> We can't replace/improve it -you were one of the major opposition to this. >> This doesn't leave more option other than using it. > > Why cannot we replace it by something upstream? > I doubt KDP is upstream-able to Linux community. If somebody can, that is great.
Even for KCP, upstreaming task is still under discussion, and as a heads up, it is likely to be dropped. Regards, ferruh >> There won't be any update in KNI kernel module, library + sample app >> will be converted into PMD. > >
