From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-f45.google.com (mail-wm0-f45.google.com [74.125.82.45]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4431F5587 for ; Thu, 21 Jul 2016 18:41:46 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-wm0-f45.google.com with SMTP id q128so27984282wma.1 for ; Thu, 21 Jul 2016 09:41:46 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=6wind-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:user-agent:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=tu0Sdj0vyePTkLoY4WW0vAHQaQK+X6TL0V4TWWwOIMc=; b=t8WFB72ZbkmDiLjdB7n1XHkeE9dD6kwPwZkZnB5UDautgK3iLnZf/jqYmcsjKZOGwS 4joZ7d+yMuNJTs9CEuLnj3ONGh+IiS/HgjAdDS7oaxXU2Qbi39YkvlrkouyBbh8VC/ZH OInC5BRRwwLXNlIW8JwL1HLyoMryMVdZ2Q4r3l4FPUhOS1WwmvQ3eW9KAtUrzN9dSpHM EcocOmspL97B1InQ55vP/75HsHxokJ8UtGI0/5nfA63Npgvs49v5A/MebQnLY7oTC6F/ llnt5ijpT7ozjl74gBVaTSL+AlXxl/4Q0hyuQgbecofvpyduzwBbDxbxKrGVZ3iZ/G2F RnaA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:user-agent :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=tu0Sdj0vyePTkLoY4WW0vAHQaQK+X6TL0V4TWWwOIMc=; b=l6v0+uHjCFp5C44WTFuLAVIJ+obQUzxAM+af8x9zHtUf/FyCAzluDtL/bPw0LLN1tE 3okoj+DTWoj2NqfqqQoNcJKL9cpF5F+DlIUsCiGvj2GgboOQSwnfiu4N72LNlz1K9HGQ DzcW2vlCc5rOTPfkmh23yK0ev6Qzaar0IJtOPS067sQOFHr+iDGDO5/Ouz9ymdxSljfS QAlt50ghYdVxsI09+sYgjRvJHHZK2ffaeb0hwh/TcQIOI7EE8sRJjJcrYKkYA7hB7TnA zFWGtOmXGrv5Tj7J4sMYBBNns3Q9BDoG0W7pV60GcdVE0LTmvLYPd2ZtufzbBL2Cdeo6 q2Xw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tKOEddkCqCyLd+yn/xzE6bg+RHeHfCPKXQMIdKHvq2mwCg6aHverqUeTOThs2o5CPSn X-Received: by 10.28.13.211 with SMTP id 202mr18852441wmn.47.1469119305999; Thu, 21 Jul 2016 09:41:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from xps13.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net. [77.134.203.184]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id v203sm5389104wmv.2.2016.07.21.09.41.45 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 21 Jul 2016 09:41:45 -0700 (PDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Igor Ryzhov , Ferruh Yigit Cc: dev@dpdk.org Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 18:41:44 +0200 Message-ID: <1531021.TGlYe7obp8@xps13> User-Agent: KMail/4.14.10 (Linux/4.5.4-1-ARCH; KDE/4.14.11; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: References: <1469030873-5966-1-git-send-email-thomas.monjalon@6wind.com> <5790EB36.3000604@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] doc: announce KNI ethtool removal X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 16:41:46 -0000 2016-07-21 16:41, Igor Ryzhov: > On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 4:33 PM, Ferruh Yigit > wrote: > > On 7/20/2016 5:07 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > The out-of-tree kernel code must be avoided. > > > Moreover there is no good reason to keep this legacy feature > > > which is only partially supported. > > > > > > As described earlier in this plan: > > > http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2016-July/043606.html > > > it will help to keep PCI ids in PMD code. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Monjalon [...] > > > + > > > +* The ethtool support will be removed from KNI in 16.11. > > > + It is implemented only for igb and ixgbe. > > > + It is really hard to maintain because it requires some out-of-tree kernel > > > + code to be duplicated in this kernel module. > > > + Removing this partial support will help to restrict the PCI id definitions > > > + to the PMD code. > > > > KNI ethtool is functional and maintained, and it may have users! > > > > Why just removing it, specially without providing an alternative? Because 1/ It is using the shared PCI ids that we want to move 2/ It has a poor support (igb/ixgbe) and makes users confused 3/ It is a big import of another version of igb/ixgbe drivers About the point 1, if we decide to keep KNI ethtool, please could you duplicate the igb/ixgbe PCI ids in KNI? > > Is is good time to discuss KCP again? > > I think good alternative is rte_ethtool library from ethtool sample > application. Yes I think so. > But I am wondering why this code is only in app, not in lib. It is an example lib because we were not sure wether we wanted to support it. But maybe it is time to discuss its status and check if it can be integrated with other DPDK libs?