[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1304546049.2926.81.camel@bwh-desktop>
Date: Wed, 04 May 2011 22:54:09 +0100
From: Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>
To: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@...el.com>
Cc: Dimitris Michailidis <dm@...lsio.com>,
"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"Kirsher, Jeffrey T" <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [ethtool PATCH 4/4] v5 Add RX packet classification interface
On Wed, 2011-05-04 at 14:07 -0700, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> On 5/4/2011 11:45 AM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
[...]
> > Please can you confirm that the location specified for
> > ETHTOOL_SRXCLSRLINS will indeed be used as a priority in case of
> > overlapping filters?
> >
> > Ben.
> >
>
> The ixgbe approach should be nearly identical in terms of how the
> priorities are based on the location of the filters.
OK, good.
> The original
> version from Santwona had the rule manager breaking the rules up into 7
> sections so that rules that specified fewer fields would be near the end
> of the list. I'm pretty sure that was all due to priorities from what I
> could see in the niu driver since the filters that covered wider ranges
> were being made lower priority to be matched last.
That would make sense.
> In terms of overloading the get count call, that probably would be the
> best route in terms of changing rule manager behavior. The only thing I
> am having a hard time seeing is how the rule manager would be able to
> distinguish between low priority and high priority filter rules, or is
> this something that new keywords would be added to the parser for?
Right, there would have to be keywords to specify that.
> I just put out version 6 of the patches. Essentially I have reduced the
> size of the rule manager to being used only on insertion without any
> rule location specified. The one thing to keep in mind with this rule
> manager is that the rule at table size - 1 is always going to be the
> lowest priority rule. So if it was reserved for unspecified rules it
> would be easy to use something like that to achieve an "auto-select"
> location that the driver could then reassign as rules were added to it.
I don't think any location value within the physical table size should
select this special behaviour. The special location values for
auto-select (with whatever priority) should be distinct from all the
physical location values.
I still need to review your patches but it sounds like they will be
ready to apply.
Ben.
--
Ben Hutchings, Senior Software Engineer, Solarflare
Not speaking for my employer; that's the marketing department's job.
They asked us to note that Solarflare product names are trademarked.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists