On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 12:21 PM, Ferruh Yigit <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 5/30/2017 11:55 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 26/05/2017 18:52, Ferruh Yigit: > >> We are looking for re-sending [1] the Kernel Control Path (KCP) > >> with some updates [2]. > >> > >> Mainly this is an usability improvement for DPDK. > >> > >> And a quick reminder about what KCP is: > >> > >> "KCP is Linux virtual network interface that can control DPDK ports". > >> > >> So DPDK interfaces, somehow will be visible and it will be possible to > >> use common Linux tools on DPDK interfaces. > > > > Reminder: the Mellanox PMDs live with their upstream kernel modules, > > allowing such features. > > > > The best model would be to have control path in kernel for every PMDs. > > That is the intention with this feature. > > > > > Anyway, do you think KCP (or NCI) could be upstreamed in any way? > > Unfortunately I believe the answer is same, it may not be possible to > upsteam this kernel module. Should this fact block the feature? > Upstream is better, but KCP is a nice quality-of-life feature that I'd like to see go in regardless. Anything that helps make DPDK less "foreign" to normal port configuration and status tools is goodness. Jay
