On Fri, 28 Aug 2015 13:44:28 +0100 Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson at intel.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 10:45:43AM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > > On Thu, 27 Aug 2015 15:56:16 +0000 > > "Zhang, Helin" <helin.zhang at intel.com> wrote: > > > > > Based on my experience, only one or two users asked for ethtool support, > > > then we have it. Before that time, we don?t have KNI ethtool support. > > > I did not mean who uses KNI does not care about it, I mean for those > > > users who don?t use KNI, they shouldn?t be bothered by the KNI > > > compilation issues. That?s why I was thinking if we can disable it by > > > default, but not remove it. > > > ? > > > Regards, > > > Helin > > > > Can KNI instead use DPDK hooks to provide generic ethtool semantics. > > That way it would work with all hardware. > > Hi Stephen, > > by this you mean that it's a generic library/kernel driver that acts as a > proxy to make calls > into the ethdev library, rather than driver-specific calls? If so, that's an > idea > that should be well worth pursuing. If it's something else you have in mind, > please clarify. > > Thanks, > > /Bruce Yes, not sure exactly how but the other changes to support ethtool like semantics in DPDK seem to overlap here.
