From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: KNI Questions
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 09:26:08 -0800
Message-ID: <5852D230.7000907@gmail.com>
References: <20161214154049.698de2e8@xeon-e3>
 <53ad7e36-380c-e5b7-a002-1690d2e63603@intel.com>
 <20161215091608.25ab1b43@xeon-e3>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: dev@dpdk.org
To: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>,
 Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mail-pf0-f195.google.com (mail-pf0-f195.google.com
 [209.85.192.195]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E8D6475D
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu, 15 Dec 2016 18:26:25 +0100 (CET)
Received: by mail-pf0-f195.google.com with SMTP id i88so3150075pfk.2
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu, 15 Dec 2016 09:26:25 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20161215091608.25ab1b43@xeon-e3>
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

On 16-12-15 09:16 AM, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Dec 2016 11:53:59 +0000
> Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Stephen,
>>
>> <...>
>>
>>>
>>> Which raises a couple of questions:
>>>  1. Why is DPDK still keeping KNI support for Intel specific ethtool functionality.
>>>     This always breaks, is code bloat, and means a 3rd copy of base code (Linux, DPDK PMD, + KNI)  
>>
>> I agree on you comments related to the ethtool functionality,
>> but right now that is a functionality that people may be using, I think
>> we should not remove it without providing an alternative to it.
>>
>>>
>>>  2. Why is KNI not upstream?
>>>     If not acceptable due to security or supportablity then why does it still exist?  
>>
>> I believe you are one of the most knowledgeable person in the mail list
>> on upstreaming, any support is welcome.
> 
> It should be upstreamable but I doubt it would make it past the maintainer.
> Mostly because it supports DPDK which he is not in favor of but also since
> it is a specialized interface only usable by DPDK, ie. not a general infrastructure.
> 

I was looking to see if we could get more or less the same interface put
in either af_packet or vhost directly. It would work nicely with the XDP
patches where we want to forward a packet into userspace without having
to build skb, etc. So it wouldn't be _just_ a DPDK interface at that
point.

I was hoping to look into it in Jan/Feb I need to wrap a few other
things up first.

.John