[dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/2] lib: move Netlink wrapper to lib
Nélio Laranjeiro
nelio.laranjeiro at 6wind.com
Wed Mar 14 13:08:55 CET 2018
On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 02:20:31PM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Mar 2018 13:28:25 +0100
> Nelio Laranjeiro <nelio.laranjeiro at 6wind.com> wrote:
>
> > TAP PMD uses a wrapper to communicate with Netlink through a socket. This
> > wrapper can be useful for other PMD which may need to communicate also with
> > the Linux kernel via Netlink.
> >
> > This series moves this wrapper to the lib level to let any PMD implement use
> > it when necessary.
> >
> > Nelio Laranjeiro (2):
> > lib: move Netlink code into a common library
> > lib: add request Netlink messages
> >
> > MAINTAINERS | 3 +
> > config/common_base | 6 ++
> > config/common_linuxapp | 1 +
> > drivers/net/tap/Makefile | 3 +-
> > drivers/net/tap/rte_eth_tap.c | 16 +--
> > drivers/net/tap/tap_flow.c | 118 ++++++++++-----------
> > drivers/net/tap/tap_netlink.h | 42 --------
> > drivers/net/tap/tap_tcmsgs.c | 28 ++---
> > drivers/net/tap/tap_tcmsgs.h | 2 +-
> > lib/Makefile | 2 +
> > lib/librte_netlink/Makefile | 26 +++++
> > lib/librte_netlink/meson.build | 13 +++
> > .../librte_netlink/rte_netlink.c | 87 +++++++++++----
> > lib/librte_netlink/rte_netlink.h | 43 ++++++++
> > lib/librte_netlink/rte_netlink_version.map | 18 ++++
> > lib/meson.build | 2 +-
> > mk/rte.app.mk | 1 +
> > 17 files changed, 263 insertions(+), 148 deletions(-)
> > delete mode 100644 drivers/net/tap/tap_netlink.h
> > create mode 100644 lib/librte_netlink/Makefile
> > create mode 100644 lib/librte_netlink/meson.build
> > rename drivers/net/tap/tap_netlink.c => lib/librte_netlink/rte_netlink.c (77%)
> > create mode 100644 lib/librte_netlink/rte_netlink.h
> > create mode 100644 lib/librte_netlink/rte_netlink_version.map
> >
>
> I might have raised this before; but having yet another netlink library is
> not a great advantage. It would be much better to use a common external library
> libmnl which is already available on every distribution.
The question is more do we really want to have a dependency on a so
small wrapper for a socket interface?
--
Nélio Laranjeiro
6WIND
More information about the dev
mailing list