2016-01-22 16:56, Ferruh Yigit: > On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 05:31:45PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > Hi Ferruh, > > > > Not commenting the implementation, just the method. > > > > 2016-01-22 16:00, Ferruh Yigit: > > > This is slow data path communication implementation based on existing KNI. > > > Difference is: librte_kni converted into a PMD, kdp kernel module is > > > almost > > > same except all control path functionality removed and some > > > simplification done. > > > > Is there a chance to submit such kernel module on LKML instead of DPDK? > > We should avoid maintaining some out-of-tree modules. > > The ones I have sent are not generic enough to be in Linux tree.
I've not read the details. What is missing to be generic? > We already maintain kni kernel module, Yes it is painful and not accepted in some Linux distros. > these patches are part of effort to make > kni more maintainable, by separation of concerns, removing network drivers > from it, > and simplifying some of code. Your patch is not removing KNI unfortunately ;) > For this patch set, tun/tap interface can be alternative, and it looks like it > removes out-of-tree kernel module requirement, unless people want current > FIFO implementation because of better performance. > > For control path, unfortunately I am not aware of any solution without > out-of-tree > kernel module support. > > Thanks, > ferruh
