On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 06:15:40PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 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 ;) >
One step at a time. :-) I think we all want to get there.
