On Thu, 15 Dec 2016 11:53:59 +0000 Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@intel.com> wrote:
> Hi Stephen, > > <...> > > > > > Which raises a couple of questions: > > 1. Why is DPDK still keeping KNI support for Intel specific ethtool > > functionality. > > This always breaks, is code bloat, and means a 3rd copy of base code > > (Linux, DPDK PMD, + KNI) > > I agree on you comments related to the ethtool functionality, > but right now that is a functionality that people may be using, I think > we should not remove it without providing an alternative to it. > > > > > 2. Why is KNI not upstream? > > If not acceptable due to security or supportablity then why does it > > still exist? > > I believe you are one of the most knowledgeable person in the mail list > on upstreaming, any support is welcome. It should be upstreamable but I doubt it would make it past the maintainer. Mostly because it supports DPDK which he is not in favor of but also since it is a specialized interface only usable by DPDK, ie. not a general infrastructure.
