[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2022 15:27:12 +0100
From: Horatiu Vultur <horatiu.vultur@...rochip.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
CC: Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>,
Michael Walle <michael@...le.cc>,
<Steen.Hegelund@...rochip.com>, <UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com>,
<daniel.machon@...rochip.com>, <davem@...emloft.net>,
<edumazet@...gle.com>, <lars.povlsen@...rochip.com>,
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
<pabeni@...hat.com>, <richardcochran@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 4/4] net: lan966x: Add ptp trap rules
The 12/09/2022 15:03, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>
> On Fri, 9 Dec 2022 17:27:13 +0200 Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > > So for example, on a fresh started lan966x the user will add the following
> > > rule:
> > > tc filter add dev eth0 ingress chain 8000000 prio 1 handle 1 protocol
> > > all flower skip_sw dst_mac 00:11:22:33:44:55/ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff action
> > > trap action goto chain 8100000
> > >
> > > He expects this rule not to be hit as there is no rule in chain 0. Now if
> > > PTP is started and it would enable vcap, then suddenly this rule may be
> > > hit.
> >
> > Is it too restrictive to only allow adding offloaded filters to a chain
> > that has a valid goto towards it, coming (perhaps indirectly) from chain 0?
>
> Right, we fumbled the review and let the chain oddness in.
> Until recently the driver worked without any rules in chain 0 :(
>
> Maybe adding and offload of the rules can be separated?
> Only actually add the rules to the HW once the goto chain rule
> has been added?
Yes, we would like to do something like this.
--
/Horatiu
Powered by blists - more mailing lists