From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
Received: from mga05.intel.com (mga05.intel.com [192.55.52.43])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD990370
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu, 15 Dec 2016 12:54:01 +0100 (CET)
Received: from fmsmga004.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.48])
 by fmsmga105.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 15 Dec 2016 03:54:00 -0800
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.33,351,1477983600"; d="scan'208";a="202883205"
Received: from fyigit-mobl1.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.237.220.29])
 ([10.237.220.29])
 by fmsmga004.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 15 Dec 2016 03:53:59 -0800
To: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>, dev@dpdk.org
References: <20161214154049.698de2e8@xeon-e3>
From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
Message-ID: <53ad7e36-380c-e5b7-a002-1690d2e63603@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 11:53:59 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/45.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20161214154049.698de2e8@xeon-e3>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] KNI Questions
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <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>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 11:54:02 -0000

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.

>