From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ferruh Yigit Subject: Re: KNI Questions Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 11:53:59 +0000 Message-ID: <53ad7e36-380c-e5b7-a002-1690d2e63603@intel.com> References: <20161214154049.698de2e8@xeon-e3> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit To: Stephen Hemminger , dev@dpdk.org Return-path: Received: from mga05.intel.com (mga05.intel.com [192.55.52.43]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD990370 for ; Thu, 15 Dec 2016 12:54:01 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <20161214154049.698de2e8@xeon-e3> List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 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. > > 3. If not upstream, then maintainer should track upstream kernel changes and fix DPDK before > kernel is released. The ABI is normally set early in the rc cycle weeks before release. I am trying to track as much as possible, any help appreciated. >