Re: [dpdk-dev] KNI - issues

[Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>]

On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 05:07:08PM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> Is anyone working on making KNI conform to current kernel best practices
> and attempt to get it upstream?  After 2 minute code review I already
> see lots and lots of things that need work.

Hi Stephen,

I am working on not KNI, but on KNI enhancements: KCP and KDP.

KCP: Kernel Control Path
http://dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/patch/10481/

KDP: Kernel Data Path
http://dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/patch/10667/

Both are based on KNI, and KNI responsibilities split into these two modules, if these cover customer requirements, they can replace current KNI.
KCP: Common Linux tools support without kernel drivers inside KNI required.
KDP: Slow data path communication as PMD, supports both KNI FIFO and tap device.

And in mail list, problems of using out-of-tree kernel module mentioned a few times,
I can take over the task to submit a generic solution to Linux upstream, as a follow up to KCP and KDP tasks,
but I need some kind of experts feedback about feasibility of this work.

That is why I have sent a call to mail list about this issue:
http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2016-February/033279.html

Thanks to Aaron, he provided his support.

I would like to get your idea too.
Specially I am planning to use rtnetlink and as iproute2 maintainer I believe you already have some answers I am looking for.

Thanks,
ferruh