> On Dec 22, 2017, at 5:38 AM, Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> wrote: > > 22/12/2017 11:04, Hemant Agrawal: >> On 12/22/2017 2:13 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> 22/12/2017 06:57, Hemant Agrawal: >>>> This patch moves the Linux kernel modules code to a common place. >>>> - Separate the kernel module code from user space code. >>>> - The GPL-2.0 licensed code is separated from the BSD-3 licensed userspace >>>> code >>> >>> What is the benefit of separate things by license? >> >> The separation makes it easy to identify and check the license. >> >> Any patch introducing new file in *non-kern* folders shall not be >> GPL-2.0 licensed. Or GPL-2.0 license is allowed only for kern folder. > > The kernel modules are in DPDK only for historical reasons. > We should get rid of them, and rely only on upstream modules. > > And it should be allowed to have kernel-related files elsewhere. > Examples: GPL tools or BPF code. > >>> These modules are Linux modules, so they should be in the linuxapp dir. >> >> >> This is a cleaner separation w.r.t userspace/kernel space code. >> *kern* is a better placefolder for LKMs. > > I prefer "kernel" name.
The name should be related to Linux in some way, like linux_kern or linux_kernel or linux_modules (this is the one I prefer) this way it make it clear which OS they are designed for. > >> Also eal is not getting overloaded. >> >> linuxapp is part of librte_eal. KNI is not related to EAL, but still >> the kni kernel code is added to librte_eal under linuxapp. > > Yes it makes sense. > > More opinions/votes? > >>> There are also some kernel modules in the bsdapp directory. >> >> We can move them as well. Regards, Keith
