> On Jun 13, 2017, at 1:00 PM, Jay Rolette <role...@infinite.io> wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 12:21 PM, Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@intel.com> > 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.
+1 > > Jay Regards, Keith
