[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJ3xEMiy-4aT4kNGgf2EYBkjMNkUYwRv59c_UBDvL3Jb_t7uJw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2018 08:54:25 +0200
From: Or Gerlitz <gerlitz.or@...il.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
Cc: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>, Rabie Loulou <rabiel@...lanox.com>,
John Hurley <john.hurley@...ronome.com>,
Simon Horman <simon.horman@...ronome.com>,
Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
mlxsw <mlxsw@...lanox.com>,
Yevgeny Kliteynik <kliteyn@...lanox.com>,
Paul Blakey <paulb@...lanox.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC net-next 2/6] driver: net: bonding: allow registration of tc
offload callbacks in bond
On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 3:50 AM, Jakub Kicinski
<jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Mar 2018 17:53:39 +0200, Or Gerlitz wrote:
>> > Starting with type 2, in our current NIC HW APIs we have to duplicate
>> > these rules
>> > into two rules set to HW:
>> >
>> > 2.1 VF rep --> uplink 0
>> > 2.2 VF rep --> uplink 1
>> >
>> > and we do that in the driver (add/del two HW rules, combine the stat
>> > results, etc)
>
> Ack, I think our HW API also will require us to duplicate the rules
> today, but IMHO we should implement some common helper module in the
> core that would work for any block sharing rather than bond specific
> solution.
To be clear, you refer to the case where the bond is the egress device
of the rule?
For the case the bond is the ingress device, RU OK with the approach
Jiri suggested
to propagate the tc setup ndo call into the lower devices? so they are
bind/unbinding
for any block the upper is. This approach is applicable for
bond/team/vlan devices for
both NIC and Switch ASIC (or NPU...) drivers. You want to make a
helper out of this?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists