From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/2] slow data path communication between DPDK
 port and Linux
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2016 08:14:24 -0800
Message-ID: <20160123161423.GB16304@bricha3-MOBL3>
References: <1453478442-23000-1-git-send-email-ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
 <1881890.o9IDb9bZGc@xps13>
 <20160122165615.GA31579@sivlogin002.ir.intel.com>
 <8078914.bEBONouQDl@xps13>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: dev@dpdk.org
To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mga01.intel.com (mga01.intel.com [192.55.52.88])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFFAD8E9E
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Sat, 23 Jan 2016 17:14:26 +0100 (CET)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <8078914.bEBONouQDl@xps13>
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <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 Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 06:15:40PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 2016-01-22 16:56, Ferruh Yigit:
> > On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 05:31:45PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > > Hi Ferruh,
> > > 
> > > Not commenting the implementation, just the method.
> > > 
> > > 2016-01-22 16:00, Ferruh Yigit:
> > > > This is slow data path communication implementation based on existing KNI.
> > > > Difference is: librte_kni converted into a PMD, kdp kernel module is almost
> > > > same except all control path functionality removed and some simplification done.
> > > 
> > > Is there a chance to submit such kernel module on LKML instead of DPDK?
> > > We should avoid maintaining some out-of-tree modules.
> > 
> > The ones I have sent are not generic enough to be in Linux tree.
> 
> I've not read the details.
> What is missing to be generic?
> 
> > We already maintain kni kernel module,
> 
> Yes it is painful and not accepted in some Linux distros.
> 
> > these patches are part of effort to make
> > kni more maintainable, by separation of concerns, removing network drivers from it,
> > and simplifying some of code.
> 
> Your patch is not removing KNI unfortunately ;)
> 

One step at a time. :-) I think we all want to get there.