[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] kni: use kni_ethtool_ops only with unknown drivers
ferruh.yigit at intel.com
Tue Dec 18 19:13:45 CET 2018
On 12/3/2018 2:06 PM, Igor Ryzhov wrote:
> Hi Ferruh,
> What about the patch?
> I also support dropping ethtool for ixgbe and i40e, but to save generic ethtool_ops
> with .get_link implementation, because it's an essential function that works
> after proper implementation of carrier status that was merged into 18.11.
> Also, other ethtool operations may be implemented in a driver-independent way using
> the same concept as for netdev_ops.
"carrier status" relies on the sample app support also relies on kni net_device
It is good target to have ethtool support in a driver-independent way, please
share more details and lets discuss them.
> On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 4:09 PM Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit at intel.com
> <mailto:ferruh.yigit at intel.com>> wrote:
> On 11/30/2018 11:38 PM, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > On Fri, 30 Nov 2018 22:47:50 +0300
> > Igor Ryzhov <iryzhov at nfware.com <mailto:iryzhov at nfware.com>> wrote:
> >> Current implementation of kni_ethtool_ops just uses corresponding
> >> ethtool_ops function of underlying driver for all functions except for
> >> .get_link. This commit sets kni->net_dev->ethtool_ops directly to the
> >> ethtool_ops of the corresponding driver.
> >> For unknown drivers (all but ixgbe and i40e) we still use
> >> kni_ethtool_ops with implemented .get_link function.
> >> Signed-off-by: Igor Ryzhov <iryzhov at nfware.com <mailto:iryzhov at nfware.com>>
> > Why does KNI still support ethtool which:
> > 1. Only works on a subset of devices
> > 2. Requires a 3rd implmentation of the HW device (Linux, DPDK, and KNI)
> +1 to drop ethtool support, last time we tried concern was anybody may be using
> it, perhaps we can try again.
> > Then again why does KNI exist at all? What is missing from virtio user which
> > is faster anyway.
More information about the dev