From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-f43.google.com (mail-wm0-f43.google.com [74.125.82.43]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C97345686 for ; Fri, 28 Oct 2016 20:40:51 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-wm0-f43.google.com with SMTP id p190so29605068wmp.1 for ; Fri, 28 Oct 2016 11:40:51 -0700 (PDT) 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:user-agent:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Mk2nHXs0p/IH/c53gje8eaR1m9XTrYrr3idK/GPjKw4=; b=Jny+NfqTAPPA7X7DfB15FFdCacBEOIHy3FdsyKCiIXnIwWK81MYX6jxJIiJ0yqpgFw Y6bgAw3fhA1BvfxGEWC/O8LkZ+3sHeDSHrg6EoIc9nbVoKoXo7cfN8Oo6JIzLH8wQmL4 KjuIliP+O7Y1bxVgLeIJ5lbL3qUQwGrMs8Q5m+8YAm1Jlp/F0KLp7GKCBDmkBAz42fFm 1z8XwNu7G/4dgSBBvIrL3QlhYOxTGLuqeiyEcTlVRefMkHZAS35VcUwvUQN3TQpFzyoI E5curDGP8L08K3q53KnnLChLxYOul5HYss+lM6SaYrUIxXtPqDTBUavpadWZk6rfJ4Gk Al7g== 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:user-agent :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Mk2nHXs0p/IH/c53gje8eaR1m9XTrYrr3idK/GPjKw4=; b=Tq0kWdGfSHkGwwM7yyD1Kw/bohAWaX5M28K+18ysZUG1J5gefzY/5hKJt/mhDQHr3b Gf/CeyQtW5Mz8tqbxZwgivicfjy1JEBA6MPIrKQmnx6/wws+ptRv5ftf0kpWCYs5Fifl XMPLv+X+PeCfysHN8IkDrthfCTev+eBWCZ7G+lrKtJPAWtpUaPvAkidWdcEWD3PwxD0F VCEFGMuqRXNFADs7Ay/iGiH46K3IalWzXjep9OHkGjoXUYBP3/wpJY0EM1nGm8VmhWzg SFQOF4Ojs1lnnS89DTtEPo8LpAZ4SJcrQvTubDJupOvJicr9Y3Cnjnp0mqcr35NHw23w 1mHQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ABUngveTQpEDYQ7ewZL5OF5F1f0melEPtwMFFJOIYXyAPIV+aggMmTqPV//Yv5p6nfxYmjjV X-Received: by 10.194.238.162 with SMTP id vl2mr12532732wjc.39.1477680051507; Fri, 28 Oct 2016 11:40:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from xps13.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net. [77.134.203.184]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id f4sm10182523wmd.15.2016.10.28.11.40.50 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 28 Oct 2016 11:40:50 -0700 (PDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Igor Ryzhov Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 20:40:50 +0200 Message-ID: <9236278.Tlj3KysXEu@xps13> User-Agent: KMail/4.14.10 (Linux/4.5.4-1-ARCH; KDE/4.14.11; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: References: <8c7f9d25-b042-6b7e-b197-7873ea7425ef@intel.com> <31440590.xYOza9ndpd@xps13> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Cc: dev@dpdk.org, "Yigit, Ferruh" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] KNI discussion in userspace event 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, 28 Oct 2016 18:40:52 -0000 2016-10-28 20:29, Igor Ryzhov: > On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 2016-10-28 15:51, Richardson, Bruce: > > > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Monjalon > > > > 2016-10-28 15:31, Ferruh Yigit: > > > > > * Remove ethtool support ? > > > > > > > > That's the other part of KNI. > > > > It works only for e1000/ixgbe. That's a niche. > > > > > > Yes, it's something we need to remove, but again, we need an > > > alternative first. > > > > > > > > > > > > Still there is some interest, will keep it. But not able to extend it > > > > > to other drivers with current design. > > > > > > > > It should be removed one day. > > > > We must seriously think about a generic alternative. > > > > Either we add DPDK support in ethtool or we create a dpdk-ethtool. > > > > (or at least a library as the one in examples/). > > > > > > I don't view that as a great path forward. Sure, we can do our own > > > ethtool, but then people will look for ifconfig to work, and "ip" to work, > > > etc. I view having a kernel proxy module as the best path here as it is > > > tool agnostic on the userspace side, rather than trying to make every > > > tool for working with kernel netdevs also have support for dpdk ports. > > > > Yes that's the ultimately best solution. > > But: > > - we need some cooperation of the kernel team > > - ethtool manages a device (what DPDK provides) whereas iproute and others > > manage a TCP/IP stack so is out of control of DPDK. > > That's not true. > iproute can control a lot of things like MAC address, promiscuous, MTU, > etc. that cannot be controlled with ethtool. > Just compare net_device_ops and ethtool_ops to see the difference. Yes you're right. iproute was not a good example :) > And the question is not only about tools, it is also about how Linux kernel > works with network devices. > And it uses net_device_ops, not ethtool_ops. What do you mean exactly? I feel you have something in mind.