[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 0/6] kni: add API to set link status on kernel interface

Ferruh Yigit ferruh.yigit at intel.com
Thu Oct 11 01:00:35 CEST 2018


On 10/10/2018 4:01 PM, Dan Gora wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 11:16 AM Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit at intel.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 9/27/2018 1:32 AM, Dan Gora wrote:
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> Attached is version 3 of a patchset to add a new API function to
>>> set the link status on kernel interfaces created with the KNI kernel
>>> module.
>>>
>>> v3
>>> ====
>>> * Use separate function to test rte_kni_update_link() in 'test' app.
>>>
>>> * Separate changes to 'test' app into separate patch to facilitate
>>>   possible merge with https://patches.dpdk.org/patch/44730/
>>>
>>> * Remove changes to set KNI interfaces to 'up' in example/kni
>>>
>>>> v2
>>>> ====
>>>>
>>>> * Fix bug where "Fixed" and "AutoNeg" were transposed in the link
>>>>   status log message.
>>>>
>>>> * Add rte_kni_update_link() to rte_kni_version.map
>>>>
>>>> * Add rte_kni_update_link() tests to kni_autotest
>>>>
>>>> * Update examples/kni to continuously monitor link status and
>>>>   update the corresponding kernel interface with
>>>>   rte_kni_update_link().
>>>>
>>>> * Minor improvements to examples/kni: Add log message showing how
>>>>   to show/zero stats.  Improve zeroing statistics.
>>>>
>>>> Note that checkpatches.sh compains about patch 1/5, but this appears
>>>> to be a bug with check-symbol-change or something.  If I move the
>>>> fragment of the patch modifying rte_kni_version.map to the bottom of
>>>> the patch file, it doesn't complain any more...  I just don't really
>>>> have time to investigate this right now.
>>>
>>> thanks
>>> dan
>>>
>>> Dan Gora (6):
>>>   kni: add API to set link status on kernel interface
>>>   kni: add link status test
>>>   kni: set default carrier state to 'off'
>>>   examples/kni: monitor and update link status continually
>>>   examples/kni: add log msgs to show and clear stats
>>>   examples/kni: improve zeroing statistics
>>
>> Hi Dan,
>>
>> We are a little away to integration deadline, it is good to clarify the status
>> of the patchset.
>>
>> There are a few change requests to this patchset:
>> 1- 4/6, there is an open on adding command line option to control monitor/set
>> link status.
> 
> No, I don't have any plans to add a command line option to do this.
> Again, there is no reason for a command line option.
> 
>> 2- Dropping 6/6, I guess you already agreed on this.
> 
> No, I showed you that that patch to fix zeroing the statistics would
> actually increase performance.  You just never responded to that
> email.
> 
>> 3- 1/6, to have or not the log message.
> 
> I included a proposal in my last email.  Please take a look at that and respond.
> 
>> I would like to see the patchset in the release, what do you think about above
>> actions?
> 
> I'm incredibly frustrated with this whole process to be honest...

Please don't be so, you are spending time/effort to improve an open source
project which is great, thank you again.

Why don't we take this as incremental steps, first get agreed part in a
patchset. 4/6 doesn't fit this but I can implement the command line part for you
if you agree, what do you think?


More information about the dev mailing list