[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <53FC931A.3020903@mojatatu.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 10:00:58 -0400
From: Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>
To: Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>
CC: Scott Feldman <sfeldma@...ulusnetworks.com>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
davem@...emloft.net, nhorman@...driver.com, andy@...yhouse.net,
dborkman@...hat.com, ogerlitz@...lanox.com, jesse@...ira.com,
pshelar@...ira.com, azhou@...ira.com, ben@...adent.org.uk,
stephen@...workplumber.org, jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com,
vyasevic@...hat.com, xiyou.wangcong@...il.com,
john.r.fastabend@...el.com, edumazet@...gle.com,
f.fainelli@...il.com, roopa@...ulusnetworks.com,
linville@...driver.com, dev@...nvswitch.org, jasowang@...hat.com,
ebiederm@...ssion.com, nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com,
ryazanov.s.a@...il.com, buytenh@...tstofly.org,
aviadr@...lanox.com, nbd@...nwrt.org, alexei.starovoitov@...il.com,
Neil.Jerram@...aswitch.com, ronye@...lanox.com
Subject: Re: [patch net-next RFC 10/12] openvswitch: add support for datapath
hardware offload
On 08/25/14 18:11, Thomas Graf wrote:
> First of all, thanks for the animated discussion, wouldn't
> want to miss our arguments ;-)
>
Passion is key my friend;-> It is said that ancient Greeks
would ask of a person whose funeral they are thinking to attend
"was s/he passionate in life?" And if the answer is negative
they simply dont show up;->
> On 08/25/14 at 12:48pm, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
>> On 08/25/14 10:54, Thomas Graf wrote:
> I would argue that swflow is a superset of a Netlink route. It
> may infact be very useful to extend the API with something that
> understands the Netlink representation of a route and have the
> API translate that to a classifier that can be offloaded.
>
Sorry Thomas, I disagree.
A route has a lot more knobs than just a simple flow representation.
We are talking next hops (of which there could be multiple) etc.
There is no way you can boil that down to a simple flow representation.
>> I would be tagging along with you guys for flows if you:
>> a) allow for different classifiers. This allows me to implement
>> u32 and offload it.
>
> Agreed. What you seem to disagree on is:
>
> - ndo_add_type1([...])
> - ndo_add_type2([...])
> - ndo_add_type3([...])
>
> vs.
>
> - ndo_add_classifier(type, [...])
>
Only for what you call a "flow" - mostly because you have decided
on the universal classifier (lets call it THEONE).
Implementation-wise, you dont have to pass a type. It could be
a sub-ops() function pointer.
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