From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4ECBF5A62 for ; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 12:29:35 +0100 (CET) Received: from int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.26]) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 85E7E135D3; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 11:29:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from sopuli.koti.laiskiainen.org (vpn1-5-13.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.5.13]) by int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u0JBTXKJ018723; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 06:29:33 -0500 To: Ferruh Yigit References: <1452874684-12750-1-git-send-email-ferruh.yigit@intel.com> <87twmauafh.fsf@redhat.com> <20160119095950.GA15736@sivlogin002.ir.intel.com> From: Panu Matilainen Message-ID: <569E1E1C.6050406@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 13:29:32 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160119095950.GA15736@sivlogin002.ir.intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.68 on 10.5.11.26 Cc: dev@dpdk.org Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC 0/3] Use common Linux tools to control DPDK ports 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: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 11:29:35 -0000 On 01/19/2016 11:59 AM, Ferruh Yigit wrote: > On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 11:20:02AM -0500, Aaron Conole wrote: >> Ferruh Yigit writes: >>> This work is to make DPDK ports more visible and to enable using common >>> Linux tools to configure DPDK ports. >> >> This is a good goal. Only question - why use an additional kernel module >> to do this? Is it _JUST_ for ethtool support? > > Kernel module used to create/destroy Linux net_devices, and module has a simple > driver for that device which only handles control messages by passing them into > userspace. > > To represent DPDK ports as Linux net_devices we need kernel support. > >> I think the other stuff >> can be accomplished using netlink sockets + messages, no? > > Netlink sockets just used to communicate kernel-space - user-space, this is not > why we need a kernel module, for example this communication is implemented in > original KNI as part of FIFO. > >> The only >> trepidation I would have with something like this is the support from >> major vendors - out of tree modules are not generally supportable. Might >> be good to get some of the ethtool commands as netlink messages as well, >> then it is supportable with no 3rd party kernel modules. > > Yes, there is a out of three module problem for some distros, but unfortunately > we are not able to find a solution for this case without an external kernel module. > > This patch is still an RFC and if we receive suggested solution without a kernel > module, we can work on it together. If it has to be in the kernel then you need to find a design that is upstreamable. Out of tree kernel modules are not a solution, they're a problem that people are working on eliminating. - Panu -