[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20141215144027.GA21262@casper.infradead.org>
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 14:40:27 +0000
From: Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>
To: "Varlese, Marco" <marco.varlese@...el.com>
Cc: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
"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
On 12/15/14 at 02:29pm, Varlese, Marco wrote:
> > All of these are highly generic and should *not* be passed through from user
> > space to the driver directly but rather be properly abstracted as Roopa
> > proposed. The value of this API is abstraction.
> How would you let the user enable/disable features then? For instance, how would the user enable/disable flooding for broadcast packets (BFLOODING) on a given port? What I was proposing is to have a list of attributes (to be added in if_link.h) which can be tuned by the user using a tool like iproute2. What do you propose?
Excellent, I agree with what you are saying. What set me off is that
the patch does not reflect that yet. Instead, the patch introduces
a pure Netlink pass-through API to the driver.
I would expect the patch to:
1. Parse the Netlink messages and be aware of individual attributes
2. Validate them
3. Pass the configuration to the driver using an API that can also
be consumed from in-kernel users.
> I think I have seen Roopa posting his updated ndo patch and getting some feedback by few people already and as long as I will be able to accomplish the use case described here I am happy with his way.
I think Roopa's patches are supplementary. Not all switchdev users
will be backed with a Linux Bridge. I therefore welcome your patches
very much.
The overlap is in the ndo. I think both the API you propose and
Roopa's bridge code should use the same NDO.
> I do not have an example right now of a vendor specific attribute but I was just saying that might happen (i.e. someone will have a feature not implemented by others?).
That's fine. Once we have them we can consider adding vendor specific
extensions.
--
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