From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Jay Rolette <rolette@infiniteio.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/3] Use common Linux tools to control DPDK
	ports
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2016 17:48:51 -0600
Message-ID: <CADNuJVqc5_TNTHv=SaUtgn0s=DwyD_LUC48Dw_n+Am9ufBDCSg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1452874684-12750-1-git-send-email-ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
 <20160118151230.194a95c6@xeon-e3>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Cc: DPDK <dev@dpdk.org>
To: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mail-vk0-f52.google.com (mail-vk0-f52.google.com
 [209.85.213.52]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D0948D8F
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 00:48:52 +0100 (CET)
Received: by mail-vk0-f52.google.com with SMTP id k1so339487078vkb.2
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Mon, 18 Jan 2016 15:48:51 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20160118151230.194a95c6@xeon-e3>
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 Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 5:12 PM, Stephen Hemminger <
stephen@networkplumber.org> wrote:

> On Fri, 15 Jan 2016 16:18:01 +0000
> Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com> wrote:
>
> > This work is to make DPDK ports more visible and to enable using common
> > Linux tools to configure DPDK ports.
> >
> > Patch is based on KNI but contains only control functionality of it,
> > also this patch does not include any Linux kernel network driver as
> > part of it.
>
> I actually would like KNI to die and be replaced by something generic.
> Right now with KNI it is driver and hardware specific. It is almost as if
> there
> are three drivers for ixgbe, the Linux driver, the DPDK driver, and the
> KNI driver.
>

Any ideas about what that would look like? Having the ability to send
traffic to/from DPDK-owned ports from control plane applications that live
outside of (and are ignorant of) DPDK is a platform requirement for our
product.

I'm assuming that isn't uncommon, but that could just be the nature of the
types of products I've built over the years.

That said, I'd love there to be something that performs better and plays
nicer with the system than KNI.

Jay