[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20190830.003225.292019185488425085.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2019 00:32:25 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: jiri@...nulli.us
Cc: idosch@...sch.org, andrew@...n.ch, horatiu.vultur@...rochip.com,
alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com, UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com,
allan.nielsen@...rochip.com, ivecera@...hat.com,
f.fainelli@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] net: core: Notify on changes to
dev->promiscuity.
From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2019 09:21:33 +0200
> Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 09:12:23AM CEST, davem@...emloft.net wrote:
>>From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
>>Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2019 08:36:24 +0200
>>
>>> The promiscuity is a way to setup the rx filter. So promics == rx filter
>>> off. For normal nics, where there is no hw fwd datapath,
>>> this coincidentally means all received packets go to cpu.
>>
>>You cannot convince me that the HW datapath isn't a "rx filter" too, sorry.
>
> If you look at it that way, then we have 2: rx_filter and hw_rx_filter.
> The point is, those 2 are not one item, that is the point I'm trying to
> make :/
And you can turn both of them off when I ask for promiscuous mode, that's
a detail of the device not a semantic issue.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists