From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Monjalon Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ethtool: add new library to provide ethtool-alike APIs Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2015 22:57:04 +0200 Message-ID: <12047083.kVoQ7TqJIK@xps13> References: <1432927612-12244-1-git-send-email-liang-min.wang@intel.com> <18146131.KjMWrd7xqb@xps13> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: dev@dpdk.org, "Wang, Liang-min" To: "Andrew Harvey (agh)" Return-path: Received: from mail-wi0-f179.google.com (mail-wi0-f179.google.com [209.85.212.179]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 521A6C33A for ; Fri, 5 Jun 2015 22:57:58 +0200 (CEST) Received: by wifx6 with SMTP id x6so32203902wif.0 for ; Fri, 05 Jun 2015 13:57:58 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 2015-06-05 16:07, Andrew Harvey: > On 6/5/15, 3:46 AM, "Thomas Monjalon" wro= te: > >Stephen and me say the same thing about using the ethdev API. >=20 > And your would have a point would be valid if dpdk were available to = every > interface we support (it is not) and on every processor architecture = that > we support (it is not) and every OS we support (it is not). So to > minimize entropy in the code why not leave the client code the same > ioctl(fd, =E2=80=A6) and hide the implementation > detail in a wrapper library. Please, explain the relation between an ioctl and the DPDK.