[dpdk-dev] Manage DPDK port capability via KNI

[Tim Deng]

Thanks Danny,
That means DPDK ports have to have dedicated control path other than KNI.


I originally got confused by the statement at http://dpdk.org/doc/guides/prog_guide/kernel_nic_interface.html:
"...Allows management of DPDK ports using standard Linux net tools such as ethtool, ifconfig and tcpdump."
Thanks,
Tim


At 2015-02-25 13:05:08, "Zhou, Danny" <danny.zhou at intel.com> wrote:
>You can do it but it will not sync with DPDK. In current KNI implementation, the devices'
>I/O address spaces are mapped to both userspace DPDK and kenrelspace KNI, so one
>can control the NIC device independently(using ethtool for KNI and ethdev APIs for DPDK)
>without synchronization.
>
>In theory, KNI should route all device control request from ethtool to DPDK. But unfortunately,
>a short path is adopted at the moment due to DPDK reused lots of legacy kernel codes with BSD license.
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Tim Deng
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2015 9:57 AM
>> To: dev at dpdk.org
>> Subject: [dpdk-dev] Manage DPDK port capability via KNI
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> 
>> I am wondering how could we manage a DPDK port offload capabilities,
>> e.g. if we want to disable TSO capability on a DPDK port, is it feasible
>> that we use ethtool to configure a KNI then the config will be sync to a DPDK port?
>> 
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Tim