On 16-12-15 09:16 AM, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > 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. >
I was looking to see if we could get more or less the same interface put in either af_packet or vhost directly. It would work nicely with the XDP patches where we want to forward a packet into userspace without having to build skb, etc. So it wouldn't be _just_ a DPDK interface at that point. I was hoping to look into it in Jan/Feb I need to wrap a few other things up first. .John
