Discussion:
Ouf of tree vs in tree kernel ixgbevf driver
(too old to reply)
Emmanuel Kasper
2015-09-05 16:31:00 UTC
Permalink
Hi !

I am working with Debian folks to create official Debian images for the
Amazon Cloud.

Amazon recommends to use an ixgbevf driver with version > 2.14.1, and to
compile this as an out of tree module.
(
http://docs.aws.amazon.com/AWSEC2/latest/UserGuide/enhanced-networking.html
)

I see the latest in tree kernel driver still has the string 2.12.1
whereas the out of tree driver is 2.16.1

Is the in tree kernel driver lagging, or is it simply that its version
string has not been updated ?

Thank you

Emmanuel





------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fujinaka, Todd
2015-09-05 23:51:04 UTC
Permalink
I checked the version numbers and you're correct. It's hard to decide which to use, but you're going to have to look to see when the kernel was released and when the driver was released and make a decision based on that. Or wait for Tuesday, when the driver guys are back in the office.

Todd Fujinaka
Software Application Engineer
Networking Division (ND)
Intel Corporation
***@intel.com
(503) 712-4565

-----Original Message-----
From: Emmanuel Kasper [mailto:***@libera.cc]
Sent: Saturday, September 05, 2015 9:31 AM
To: e1000-***@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: [E1000-devel] Ouf of tree vs in tree kernel ixgbevf driver

Hi !

I am working with Debian folks to create official Debian images for the Amazon Cloud.

Amazon recommends to use an ixgbevf driver with version > 2.14.1, and to compile this as an out of tree module.
(
http://docs.aws.amazon.com/AWSEC2/latest/UserGuide/enhanced-networking.html
)

I see the latest in tree kernel driver still has the string 2.12.1 whereas the out of tree driver is 2.16.1

Is the in tree kernel driver lagging, or is it simply that its version string has not been updated ?

Thank you

Emmanuel
Emmanuel Kasper
2015-09-08 14:39:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fujinaka, Todd
I checked the version numbers and you're correct. It's hard to decide
which to use, but you're going to have to look to see when the kernel
was released and when the driver was released and make a decision based
on that. Or wait for Tuesday, when the driver guys are back in the office.
Post by Fujinaka, Todd
Todd Fujinaka
Software Application Engineer
Networking Division (ND)
Intel Corporation
(503) 712-4565
Hi Todd
Thanks

Then let's ask the driver guys ^_^ My original question is still

Is the in.tree kernel driver with version string 2.12.1 lagging behind
the sourceforge driver with version 2.16.1 ?

or:

Do I get any avantage compiling the sourceforge driver if I already run
the latest released kernel.org kernel ?


Emmanuel



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tantilov, Emil S
2015-09-08 17:33:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fujinaka, Todd
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2015 7:39 AM
Subject: Re: [E1000-devel] Ouf of tree vs in tree kernel ixgbevf driver
Post by Fujinaka, Todd
I checked the version numbers and you're correct. It's hard to decide
which to use, but you're going to have to look to see when the kernel
was released and when the driver was released and make a decision based
on that. Or wait for Tuesday, when the driver guys are back in the office.
Post by Fujinaka, Todd
Todd Fujinaka
Software Application Engineer
Networking Division (ND)
Intel Corporation
(503) 712-4565
Hi Todd
Thanks
Then let's ask the driver guys ^_^ My original question is still
Is the in.tree kernel driver with version string 2.12.1 lagging behind
the sourceforge driver with version 2.16.1 ?
No it's not, but it seems that Amazon's recommendation is for the OOT driver.

Thanks,
Emil


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emmanuel Kasper
2015-09-09 08:05:09 UTC
Permalink
Hi Emil
Post by Tantilov, Emil S
Post by Emmanuel Kasper
Then let's ask the driver guys ^_^ My original question is still
Is the in.tree kernel driver with version string 2.12.1 lagging behind
the sourceforge driver with version 2.16.1 ?
No it's not, but it seems that Amazon's recommendation is for the OOT driver.
If I understand you right, considering

* Amazon is recommanding ixgbevf > 2.14.2
* 2.14.2 was released as OOT module on 2014-03-28
* drivers functionnalities are in sync beween in-tree and OOT

then all kernels released after 2014-03-28, starting with 3.14,
should have the same functionalities as the out of tree 2.14.2 driver.

Am I right ?


If yes, I will ask Amazon to update their documentation, because it
confuses some people
( see for instance
https://github.com/coreos/coreos-overlay/issues/1148 )

Thank you

Emmanuel
Tantilov, Emil S
2015-09-10 20:55:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fujinaka, Todd
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2015 1:05 AM
Subject: Re: [E1000-devel] Ouf of tree vs in tree kernel ixgbevf driver
Hi Emil
Post by Tantilov, Emil S
Post by Emmanuel Kasper
Then let's ask the driver guys ^_^ My original question is still
Is the in.tree kernel driver with version string 2.12.1 lagging behind
the sourceforge driver with version 2.16.1 ?
No it's not, but it seems that Amazon's recommendation is for the OOT driver.
If I understand you right, considering
* Amazon is recommanding ixgbevf > 2.14.2
* 2.14.2 was released as OOT module on 2014-03-28
* drivers functionnalities are in sync beween in-tree and OOT
then all kernels released after 2014-03-28, starting with 3.14,
should have the same functionalities as the out of tree 2.14.2 driver.
Am I right ?
The last significant set of patches to the upstream ixgbevf driver are
from 02/06/15, and it appears to have been accepted in the 4.0 kernel.
Post by Fujinaka, Todd
If yes, I will ask Amazon to update their documentation, because it
confuses some people
( see for instance https://github.com/coreos/coreos-overlay/issues/1148 )
Yeah, we need to update the version in the upstream driver.

Thanks,
Emil
Post by Fujinaka, Todd
Thank you
Emmanuel
Rustad, Mark D
2015-09-10 21:16:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tantilov, Emil S
Yeah, we need to update the version in the upstream driver.
I did send a patch to do that in my series for X55* SFP+ support.

--
Mark Rustad, Networking Division, Intel Corporation

Loading...