[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <C4896FB061E7DE4AAC93031BDCA044B104AC3914@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2014 09:59:42 +0000
From: "Varlese, Marco" <marco.varlese@...el.com>
To: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
CC: "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"stephen@...workplumber.org" <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
"Fastabend, John R" <john.r.fastabend@...el.com>,
"roopa@...ulusnetworks.com" <roopa@...ulusnetworks.com>,
"sfeldma@...il.com" <sfeldma@...il.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [RFC PATCH net-next 1/1] net: Support for switch port
configuration
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Fastabend [mailto:john.fastabend@...il.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 5:04 PM
> To: Jiri Pirko
> Cc: Varlese, Marco; netdev@...r.kernel.org;
> stephen@...workplumber.org; Fastabend, John R;
> roopa@...ulusnetworks.com; sfeldma@...il.com; linux-
> kernel@...r.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 1/1] net: Support for switch port
> configuration
>
> On 12/10/2014 08:50 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> > Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 05:23:40PM CET, marco.varlese@...el.com wrote:
> >> From: Marco Varlese <marco.varlese@...el.com>
> >>
> >> Switch hardware offers a list of attributes that are configurable on
> >> a per port basis.
> >> This patch provides a mechanism to configure switch ports by adding
> >> an NDO for setting specific values to specific attributes.
> >> There will be a separate patch that extends iproute2 to call the new
> >> NDO.
> >
> >
> > What are these attributes? Can you give some examples. I'm asking
> > because there is a plan to pass generic attributes to switch ports
> > replacing current specific ndo_switch_port_stp_update. In this case,
> > bridge is setting that attribute.
> >
> > Is there need to set something directly from userspace or does it make
> > rather sense to use involved bridge/ovs/bond ? I think that both will
> > be needed.
>
> +1
>
> I think for many attributes it would be best to have both. The in kernel callers
> and netlink userspace can use the same driver ndo_ops.
>
> But then we don't _require_ any specific bridge/ovs/etc module. And we
> may have some attributes that are not specific to any existing software
> module. I'm guessing Marco has some examples of these.
>
> [...]
>
>
> --
> John Fastabend Intel Corporation
We do have a need to configure the attributes directly from user-space and I have identified the tool to do that in iproute2.
An example of attributes are:
* enabling/disabling of learning of source addresses on a given port (you can imagine the attribute called LEARNING for example);
* internal loopback control (i.e. LOOPBACK) which will control how the flow of traffic behaves from the switch fabric towards an egress port;
* flooding for broadcast/multicast/unicast type of packets (i.e. BFLOODING, MFLOODING, UFLOODING);
Some attributes would be of the type enabled/disabled while other will allow specific values to allow the user to configure different behaviours of that feature on that particular port on that platform.
One thing to mention - as John stated as well - there might be some attributes that are not specific to any software module but rather have to do with the actual hardware/platform to configure.
I hope this clarifies some points.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Marco Varlese - Intel Corporation
-----------------------------------------------------------
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists