From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga03.intel.com (mga03.intel.com [134.134.136.65]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2AEB591A for ; Fri, 28 Aug 2015 14:44:33 +0200 (CEST) Received: from fmsmga003.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.29]) by orsmga103.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 28 Aug 2015 05:44:32 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.17,424,1437462000"; d="scan'208";a="550262264" Received: from bricha3-mobl3.ger.corp.intel.com ([10.237.208.62]) by FMSMGA003.fm.intel.com with SMTP; 28 Aug 2015 05:44:29 -0700 Received: by (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Fri, 28 Aug 2015 13:44:28 +0025 Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2015 13:44:28 +0100 From: Bruce Richardson To: Stephen Hemminger Message-ID: <20150828124428.GA11184@bricha3-MOBL3> References: <20150826171516.7160bcb2@urahara> <20150827104543.0138ab53@urahara> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20150827104543.0138ab53@urahara> Organization: Intel Shannon Ltd. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] BUG - KNI broken in 4.2 kernel 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: Fri, 28 Aug 2015 12:44:34 -0000 On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 10:45:43AM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > On Thu, 27 Aug 2015 15:56:16 +0000 > "Zhang, Helin" wrote: > > > Based on my experience, only one or two users asked for ethtool support, then we have it. Before that time, we don’t have KNI ethtool support. > > I did not mean who uses KNI does not care about it, I mean for those users who don’t use KNI, they shouldn’t be bothered by the KNI compilation issues. That’s why I was thinking if we can disable it by default, but not remove it. > >   > > Regards, > > Helin > > Can KNI instead use DPDK hooks to provide generic ethtool semantics. > That way it would work with all hardware. Hi Stephen, by this you mean that it's a generic library/kernel driver that acts as a proxy to make calls into the ethdev library, rather than driver-specific calls? If so, that's an idea that should be well worth pursuing. If it's something else you have in mind, please clarify. Thanks, /Bruce