[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181213112315.7ea76799@cakuba.netronome.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2018 11:23:15 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
To: Or Gerlitz <gerlitz.or@...il.com>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>,
Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>,
Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>, mkubecek@...e.cz,
Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>
Subject: Re: [net-next,v5,00/12] add flow_rule infrastructure
On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 12:06:39 +0200, Or Gerlitz wrote:
> > Maybe having a side library that could take a ethtool/flower/nft flow
> > and return common IR representation of that flow would be less painful?
> > Drivers could then migrate at its own pace, for new functionality etc.
> > Was that discussed before? I may have lost track of this discussion...
>
> Currently all drivers are ported to use the IR on the tc/flower offload path
>
> End of the day, seems that Jiri and Jakub are good with this and I didn't hear
> any further rejections from other driver folks, so I guess my concerns
> were basically addressed by them.
I think having the drivers call the IR translation could be a good
compromise instead of having flower always pass down converted flows.
tc flower -> flower offload object -> setup_tc -> driver ->
-> flow_offload_from_flower() -> driver -> driver's common handling
This patchset already does that for ethtool:
ethtool -> ethtool flow -> ethtool_op -> driver ->
-> ethtool_rx_flow_rule_create() -> driver -> driver's common handling
It feels like a bit of a waste to let the driver patches go, but
perhaps it's a good way to move forward?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists