* KNI - issues @ 2016-02-21 1:07 Stephen Hemminger 2016-02-22 2:44 ` Zhang, Helin 2016-02-22 14:00 ` Ferruh Yigit 0 siblings, 2 replies; 3+ messages in thread From: Stephen Hemminger @ 2016-02-21 1:07 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Helin Zhang; +Cc: dev Is anyone working on making KNI conform to current kernel best practices and attempt to get it upstream? After 2 minute code review I already see lots and lots of things that need work. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: KNI - issues 2016-02-21 1:07 KNI - issues Stephen Hemminger @ 2016-02-22 2:44 ` Zhang, Helin 2016-02-22 14:00 ` Ferruh Yigit 1 sibling, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread From: Zhang, Helin @ 2016-02-22 2:44 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Stephen Hemminger; +Cc: dev@dpdk.org Hi Stephen I don't think so. I'd ask internally to see if somebody can help on that. Thanks and sorry! Regards, Helin > -----Original Message----- > From: Stephen Hemminger [mailto:stephen@networkplumber.org] > Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2016 9:07 AM > To: Zhang, Helin <helin.zhang@intel.com> > Cc: dev@dpdk.org > Subject: KNI - issues > > Is anyone working on making KNI conform to current kernel best practices and > attempt to get it upstream? After 2 minute code review I already see lots and > lots of things that need work. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: KNI - issues 2016-02-21 1:07 KNI - issues Stephen Hemminger 2016-02-22 2:44 ` Zhang, Helin @ 2016-02-22 14:00 ` Ferruh Yigit 1 sibling, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread From: Ferruh Yigit @ 2016-02-22 14:00 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Stephen Hemminger; +Cc: dev On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 05:07:08PM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > Is anyone working on making KNI conform to current kernel best practices > and attempt to get it upstream? After 2 minute code review I already > see lots and lots of things that need work. Hi Stephen, I am working on not KNI, but on KNI enhancements: KCP and KDP. KCP: Kernel Control Path http://dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/patch/10481/ KDP: Kernel Data Path http://dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/patch/10667/ Both are based on KNI, and KNI responsibilities split into these two modules, if these cover customer requirements, they can replace current KNI. KCP: Common Linux tools support without kernel drivers inside KNI required. KDP: Slow data path communication as PMD, supports both KNI FIFO and tap device. And in mail list, problems of using out-of-tree kernel module mentioned a few times, I can take over the task to submit a generic solution to Linux upstream, as a follow up to KCP and KDP tasks, but I need some kind of experts feedback about feasibility of this work. That is why I have sent a call to mail list about this issue: http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2016-February/033279.html Thanks to Aaron, he provided his support. I would like to get your idea too. Specially I am planning to use rtnetlink and as iproute2 maintainer I believe you already have some answers I am looking for. Thanks, ferruh ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2016-02-22 14:00 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2016-02-21 1:07 KNI - issues Stephen Hemminger 2016-02-22 2:44 ` Zhang, Helin 2016-02-22 14:00 ` Ferruh Yigit
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.