[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87k0tx7aa5.fsf@toke.dk>
Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2020 18:26:10 +0100
From: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, alardam@...il.com
Cc: magnus.karlsson@...el.com, bjorn.topel@...el.com,
andrii.nakryiko@...il.com, ast@...nel.org, daniel@...earbox.net,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net,
john.fastabend@...il.com, hawk@...nel.org,
maciej.fijalkowski@...el.com, jonathan.lemon@...il.com,
bpf@...r.kernel.org, jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com,
maciejromanfijalkowski@...il.com, intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org,
Marek Majtyka <marekx.majtyka@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 bpf 0/5] New netdev feature flags for XDP
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> writes:
> On Fri, 4 Dec 2020 11:28:56 +0100 alardam@...il.com wrote:
>> * Extend ethtool netlink interface in order to get access to the XDP
>> bitmap (XDP_PROPERTIES_GET). [Toke]
>
> That's a good direction, but I don't see why XDP caps belong in ethtool
> at all? We use rtnetlink to manage the progs...
You normally use ethtool to get all the other features a device support,
don't you? And for XDP you even use it to configure the number of
TXQs.
I mean, it could be an rtnetlink interface as well, of course, but I
don't think it's completely weird if this goes into ethtool...
-Toke
Powered by blists - more mailing lists