From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Hemminger Subject: Re: KNI Questions Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 09:16:08 -0800 Message-ID: <20161215091608.25ab1b43@xeon-e3> References: <20161214154049.698de2e8@xeon-e3> <53ad7e36-380c-e5b7-a002-1690d2e63603@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: dev@dpdk.org To: Ferruh Yigit Return-path: Received: from mail-pg0-f49.google.com (mail-pg0-f49.google.com [74.125.83.49]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD8E0282 for ; Thu, 15 Dec 2016 18:16:17 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-pg0-f49.google.com with SMTP id x23so21994299pgx.1 for ; Thu, 15 Dec 2016 09:16:17 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <53ad7e36-380c-e5b7-a002-1690d2e63603@intel.com> List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On Thu, 15 Dec 2016 11:53:59 +0000 Ferruh Yigit 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.