Re: [RFC 0/3] Use common Linux tools to control DPDK ports

[Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>]

On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 11:20:02AM -0500, Aaron Conole wrote:
> Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com> writes:
> > This work is to make DPDK ports more visible and to enable using common
> > Linux tools to configure DPDK ports.
> 
> This is a good goal. Only question - why use an additional kernel module
> to do this? Is it _JUST_ for ethtool support? 

Kernel module used to create/destroy Linux net_devices, and module has a simple
driver for that device which only handles control messages by passing them into
userspace.

To represent DPDK ports as Linux net_devices we need kernel support.

> I think the other stuff
> can be accomplished using netlink sockets + messages, no?

Netlink sockets just used to communicate kernel-space - user-space, this is not
why we need a kernel module, for example this communication is implemented in
original KNI as part of FIFO.

>The only
> trepidation I would have with something like this is the support from
> major vendors - out of tree modules are not generally supportable. Might
> be good to get some of the ethtool commands as netlink messages as well,
> then it is supportable with no 3rd party kernel modules.

Yes, there is a out of three module problem for some distros, but unfortunately
we are not able to find a solution for this case without an external kernel module.

This patch is still an RFC and if we receive suggested solution without a kernel
module, we can work on it together.

Thanks,
ferruh