On 6/16/2017 4:54 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote: > On 5/28/2017 5:55 PM, Wiles, Keith wrote: >> >>> On May 26, 2017, at 11:52 AM, Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@intel.com> wrote: >>> >>> 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. >>> >>> This work can be done in multiple steps: >>> >>> - At first step virtual interfaces can be read-only, and can be used >>> to get stats / information from DPDK ports. >>> >>> - Second step can be controlling the DPDK interfaces in a common way >>> like Linux interfaces. >>> >>> It is good to remind that KCP is only for control path, and no data >>> traffic will be available on those interfaces, meaning not able to use >>> tcpdump or similar tools on those interfaces. >>> >>> I would like to hear about comments, requirements and objection about >>> the idea? >>> >>> Also the name "Kernel Control Path" can be too broad, I am open to a >>> name change, any comments on naming is welcome. >> >> Using kernel in the name is not very useful, but netlink is the real part >> that makes sense. >> >> How about one of these: >> - DNI = DPDK Netlink Interface >> - DNC = DPDK Netlink Control >> - NCI = Netlink Control Interface >> >> Being able to control DPDK interfaces via Netlink is one of the customer >> needs I have heard of late. > > My concern is this name my create a miss understanding that DPDK is > providing a netlink interface for other applications that they can use > to control DPDK application / interfaces. > > Here although netlink sockets used to communicate between kernel and > userspace, DPDK application connects to the netlink socket provided by > kernel module, and DPDK interfaces controlled using virtual Linux > network interfaces, independent from what kind of communication method > used between kernel and userspace.
what do you thinks about "Userspace Network Control Interface (UNCI)" ? [*] I am for this one, if there is no objection. [*] Suggested by Tim O'Driscoll > >> >>> >>> >>> [1] >>> http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2016-March/035139.html >>> >>> [2] >>> Updates planned to the latest version sent: >>> - Create control interfaces without requiring an API call from user >>> application, this will let DPDK applications have this support >>> without any modification. >>> - Default enabled interfaces will be read-only. >>> - Possible rename. >>> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> ferruh >>> >>> >>> Ferruh Yigit (4): >>> ethtool: move from sample folder to lib folder >>> kcp: add kernel control path kernel module >>> rte_ctrl_if: add control interface library >>> ethdev: add control interface support >>> >>> -- >>> 2.9.3 >>> >> >> Regards, >> Keith >> >
