On Wed, 3 Jun 2015 02:09:39 +0000 "Andrew Harvey (agh)" <agh at cisco.com> wrote:
> I believe that their is value in this interface for software stacks not > based on Linux being moved toward DPDK that need simple operations like > getting the mac address. Some of these stacks have a dearth of resources > available and dedicating a core/thread to KNI to get/set a mac address > is considered excessive. There are also issues with 32/64 bit kernel > integration > using KNI. If the ethtool interface is not the correct interface then > please help me > understand what should/could have been used. If ethtool is considered 'old > and clunky? > Stephen's and your input would be valuable in designing another interface > with > similar properties. The use-case is pretty simple and there is no plans > for moving > anything back into the kernel on the contrary its the complete opposite. > > ? Andy We have DPDK API's to do this, and any added wrappers make it bigger. I don't see why calling your ethtool API is better than calling rte_eth* API. If there is a missing functionality in the rte_ethXXX api's for an application then add that. For example: rte_eth_mac_addr_get()