Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/3] kcp: add kernel control path kernel module

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

On 2/29/2016 11:35 AM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> On 2/29/2016 11:06 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I totally agree with Avi's comments.
>> This topic is really important for the future of DPDK.
>> So I think we must give some time to continue the discussion
>> and have netdev involved in the choices done.
>> As a consequence, these series should not be merged in the release 16.04.
>> Thanks for continuing the work.
>>
> Hi Thomas,
> 
> It is great to have some discussion and feedbacks.
> But I doubt not merging in this release will help to have more discussion.
> 
> It is better to have them in this release and let people experiment it,
> this gives more chance to better discussion.
> 
> These features are replacement of KNI, and KNI is not intended to be
> removed in this release, so who are using KNI as solution can continue
> to use KNI and can test KCP/KDP, so that we can get more feedbacks.
> 
One more thing, overall reason of working on KCP/KDP is reduce KNI
maintenance cost, and add more features, not to add more maintenance cost.
The most maintenance cost of KNI is because of Linux network drivers in
it, which KCP removes them, so there is an improvement.

Although it is not as good as removing them completely, KCP/KDP is one
step closer to be upstreamed than existing KNI.

Thanks,
ferruh