From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga09.intel.com (mga09.intel.com [134.134.136.24]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 650DC559A for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2017 19:21:54 +0200 (CEST) Received: from orsmga004.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.38]) by orsmga102.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 13 Jun 2017 10:21:54 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.39,338,1493708400"; d="scan'208";a="97569065" Received: from fyigit-mobl1.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.237.220.91]) ([10.237.220.91]) by orsmga004.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 13 Jun 2017 10:21:52 -0700 To: Thomas Monjalon Cc: dev@dpdk.org References: <20170526165228.96919-1-ferruh.yigit@intel.com> <3497879.P1UMQ6Rz4g@xps> From: Ferruh Yigit Message-ID: Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 18:21:52 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.1.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <3497879.P1UMQ6Rz4g@xps> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC] Kernel Control Path (KCP) X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 17:21:55 -0000 On 5/30/2017 11:55 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 26/05/2017 18:52, Ferruh Yigit: >> We are looking for re-sending [1] the Kernel Control Path (KCP) >> with some updates [2]. >> >> Mainly this is an usability improvement for DPDK. >> >> And a quick reminder about what KCP is: >> >> "KCP is Linux virtual network interface that can control DPDK ports". >> >> So DPDK interfaces, somehow will be visible and it will be possible to >> use common Linux tools on DPDK interfaces. > > Reminder: the Mellanox PMDs live with their upstream kernel modules, > allowing such features. > > The best model would be to have control path in kernel for every PMDs. That is the intention with this feature. > > Anyway, do you think KCP (or NCI) could be upstreamed in any way? Unfortunately I believe the answer is same, it may not be possible to upsteam this kernel module. Should this fact block the feature?