[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAE4R7bAueaSn7Z+Wcipf7UYQ57GteomTJDM8Ohn_-KFu5zw0sw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2015 14:13:35 -0800
From: Scott Feldman <sfeldma@...il.com>
To: Shrijeet Mukherjee <shrijeet@...il.com>
Cc: Andy Gospodarek <gospo@...ulusnetworks.com>,
Tom Herbert <therbert@...gle.com>,
Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>,
Simon Horman <simon.horman@...ronome.com>,
John Fastabend <john.r.fastabend@...el.com>,
Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net>,
Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@...hat.com>,
Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@...lanox.com>,
Jesse Gross <jesse@...ira.com>,
"jpettit@...ira.com" <jpettit@...ira.com>,
Joe Stringer <joestringer@...ira.com>,
Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
Roopa Prabhu <roopa@...ulusnetworks.com>,
John Linville <linville@...driver.com>,
Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: Flows! Offload them.
On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 10:31 AM, Shrijeet Mukherjee <shrijeet@...il.com> wrote:
>>
>> Can you elaborate on "allow for async write of data to hardware
>> tables"? Is this the trampoline model where user's request goes to
>> the kernel, and then back to user-space, and finally to the hardware
>> via an user-space SDK? I think we should exclude that model from
>> discussions about resource management. With the recent L2/L3 offload
>> work, I'm advocating a synchronous call path from user to kernel to
>> hardware so we can return a actionable result code, and put the burden
>> of resource management in user-space, not in the kernel.
>>
> Scott you mean synchronous to the switchdev driver right ?
Correct.
--
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