From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-f51.google.com (mail-wm0-f51.google.com [74.125.82.51]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF5FD5A44 for ; Fri, 22 Jan 2016 18:16:41 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-wm0-f51.google.com with SMTP id b14so142777678wmb.1 for ; Fri, 22 Jan 2016 09:16:41 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=6wind-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:organization:user-agent :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding :content-type; bh=gKQar9d3NhmEEagYAnGcGE+9n7u6IdPqAcPfRZnuzUg=; b=OYWOJT1PczmnPl8CUZBfKgjufU/w4dnv6x+iSHRkHIZOujemoY8Z77lLOK2GTtK/SZ w/vGl/w+IvteGxPQXRw/eTV4QwZCUdS9OBLVkEOltL+b7NlH54ggPvKgOSJ4YCTK3E4x 71Vc7zMZ/58ElnOMZobSXSbXFseGTb+1A5TCBbSpCRBRqMbXgNcdV+W4Q9tDMrMX+Jiv GXGDafK9etaeDX6/PxHdqcNOPnZ1M5CKORo9vu0oYycftVI4I68zTA6fYa4FocK8Tzoy NvuQgjdxzeVPlm5TWZ5lSm08J/op50wLO70+rFr/lQvKzx1aUet2nnv7wVYHT80AlFi6 YTRw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:organization :user-agent:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding:content-type; bh=gKQar9d3NhmEEagYAnGcGE+9n7u6IdPqAcPfRZnuzUg=; b=Jk+8ZfMtnyHF9Ih3TYIQMArE5u9rk+iJBfrn0p+/iS8vAPUZxR3hKa2ZHj//5S3Ehq wF5P97/YTD4PKTzhaWwD2pBLAHKbXHSRNMZFewKcc29NPH4IEFLIiEgglsHwLjpGZozT TfxvHCqurlkeD2ukzusaIq1GelR73h/v6lXbdeGI5pDV3MjV1G3y2W7u+RGTgE0PJ/EG W5jXBDvPmzbTU002gELqRO8qte5dlinnj8Axcq+bPJGsn58y9wy8ilHpouMYx7jSz1ue hRs36U/doqcHlvrc4D7NLcf2aaGFxDnv6gWTKMyZW/gvNjCX3BQBiIDxKpnIKEkt8VGs gb/A== X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOTBbXhKnTSydhcPC2MTrTDKQopFiXFo77BKt8pnIcxK2tLcLOAtFnsC8DQseTgHTpIu X-Received: by 10.194.7.100 with SMTP id i4mr4293411wja.76.1453483001810; Fri, 22 Jan 2016 09:16:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from xps13.localnet (136-92-190-109.dsl.ovh.fr. [109.190.92.136]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id i2sm6759129wjx.42.2016.01.22.09.16.40 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 22 Jan 2016 09:16:41 -0800 (PST) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Ferruh Yigit Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2016 18:15:40 +0100 Message-ID: <8078914.bEBONouQDl@xps13> Organization: 6WIND User-Agent: KMail/4.14.10 (Linux/4.1.6-1-ARCH; KDE/4.14.11; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <20160122165615.GA31579@sivlogin002.ir.intel.com> References: <1453478442-23000-1-git-send-email-ferruh.yigit@intel.com> <1881890.o9IDb9bZGc@xps13> <20160122165615.GA31579@sivlogin002.ir.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Cc: dev@dpdk.org Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC 0/2] slow data path communication between DPDK port and Linux 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, 22 Jan 2016 17:16:42 -0000 2016-01-22 16:56, Ferruh Yigit: > On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 05:31:45PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > Hi Ferruh, > > > > Not commenting the implementation, just the method. > > > > 2016-01-22 16:00, Ferruh Yigit: > > > This is slow data path communication implementation based on existing KNI. > > > Difference is: librte_kni converted into a PMD, kdp kernel module is almost > > > same except all control path functionality removed and some simplification done. > > > > Is there a chance to submit such kernel module on LKML instead of DPDK? > > We should avoid maintaining some out-of-tree modules. > > The ones I have sent are not generic enough to be in Linux tree. I've not read the details. What is missing to be generic? > We already maintain kni kernel module, Yes it is painful and not accepted in some Linux distros. > these patches are part of effort to make > kni more maintainable, by separation of concerns, removing network drivers from it, > and simplifying some of code. Your patch is not removing KNI unfortunately ;) > For this patch set, tun/tap interface can be alternative, and it looks like it > removes out-of-tree kernel module requirement, unless people want current > FIFO implementation because of better performance. > > For control path, unfortunately I am not aware of any solution without out-of-tree > kernel module support. > > Thanks, > ferruh