[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1330608980.6944.27.camel@mojatatu>
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2012 08:36:20 -0500
From: Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>
To: John Fastabend <john.r.fastabend@...el.com>
Cc: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>,
bhutchings@...arflare.com, roprabhu@...co.com,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, mst@...hat.com, chrisw@...hat.com,
davem@...emloft.net, gregory.v.rose@...el.com, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
sri@...ibm.com, kernel@...tstofly.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v0 1/2] net: bridge: propagate FDB table into
hardware
On Wed, 2012-02-29 at 10:19 -0800, John Fastabend wrote:
> >
> > I want to see a unified API so that user space control applications (RSTP, TRILL?)
> > can use one set of netlink calls for both software bridge and hardware offloaded
> > bridges. Does this proposal meet that requirement?
> >
I dont see any issues with those requirements being met.
> Jamal, so why do "They have to be different calls"? I'm not so sure anymore...
> moving to RTM_FDB_XXXENTRY saved some refactoring in the bridge module but that
> is just cosmetic.
I may not want to use the s/ware bridge i.e I may want to use h/ware
bridge. I may want to use both. So there are 3 variations there. You
need at least 1.5 bits to represent them if you are going to use the
same interface. There may be features in either h/ware but not in
s/ware and vice-versa.
A single interface with flags which say this applies to hware:sware:both
would be good, but it may be harder to achieve - thats why i suggested
they be different.
cheers,
jamal
--
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