[dpdk-dev] [RFC] kni: remove ethtool support

Ferruh Yigit ferruh.yigit at intel.com
Mon Feb 18 14:18:32 CET 2019


On 2/18/2019 1:07 PM, Igor Ryzhov wrote:
> Hi Ferruh,
> 
> Thanks. Should I be a maintainer to ack the patch?

No, everyone can (n)ack a patch, though maintainers have more weight.

> 
> Best regards,
> Igor
> 
> On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 3:33 PM Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit at intel.com
> <mailto:ferruh.yigit at intel.com>> wrote:
> 
>     On 2/6/2019 1:12 PM, Igor Ryzhov wrote:
>     > Hi Ferruh,
>     >
>     > What's the plan with this patch?
> 
>     Hi Igor,
> 
>     I just sent a deprecation notice for this:
>     https://patches.dpdk.org/patch/50347/
> 
>     If the deprecation notice approved, requires 3 acks, note will go into 19.05
>     And later this patch can go in 19.08
> 
>     Thanks,
>     ferruh
> 
>     >
>     > Best regards,
>     > Igor
>     >
>     > On Sat, Jan 5, 2019 at 7:55 PM Igor Ryzhov <iryzhov at nfware.com
>     <mailto:iryzhov at nfware.com>
>     > <mailto:iryzhov at nfware.com <mailto:iryzhov at nfware.com>>> wrote:
>     >
>     >     Hi Ferruh,
>     >
>     >     I answered in another thread.
>     >
>     >     Regarding this patch – I have no objections now.
>     >
>     >     Best regards,
>     >     Igor
>     >
>     >     On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 9:17 PM Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit at intel.com
>     <mailto:ferruh.yigit at intel.com>
>     >     <mailto:ferruh.yigit at intel.com <mailto:ferruh.yigit at intel.com>>> wrote:
>     >
>     >         On 12/18/2018 9:20 AM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>     >         > On 12/18/2018 8:20 AM, Igor Ryzhov wrote:
>     >         >> Hi Ferruh,
>     >         >>
>     >         >> Please, look at my patch http://patches.dpdk.org/patch/48454/ and
>     >         consider
>     >         >> rebasing your patch over mine.
>     >         >
>     >         > Sorry about that, yes I will check it today.
>     >
>     >         Hi Igor,
>     >
>     >         I put some comments on your patch.
>     >
>     >         As far as I can see it also has a target to remove current type of
>     ethtool
>     >         support, so this RFC should not be a concern to you.
>     >         All ethtool support can be removed, when you have an actual
>     solution for
>     >         driver
>     >         independent ethtool support only a little code needs to be added back.
>     >
>     >         Thanks,
>     >         ferruh
>     >
>     >         >
>     >         >>
>     >         >> As we discussed with Stephen, KNI needs to supply ethtool_ops with
>     >         >> .get_link function, to properly support link status.
>     >         >> So we should save ethtool_ops and implement .get_link using
>     standard
>     >         >> ethtool_op_get_link.
>     >         >>
>     >         >> Best regards,
>     >         >> Igor
>     >         >
>     >         >
>     >
> 



More information about the dev mailing list