[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2021 12:26:32 +0100
From: Marek Majtyka <alardam@...il.com>
To: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>
Cc: Saeed Mahameed <saeed@...nel.org>, David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>,
Maciej Fijalkowski <maciej.fijalkowski@...el.com>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
Jesper Dangaard Brouer <jbrouer@...hat.com>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Maciej Fijalkowski <maciejromanfijalkowski@...il.com>,
Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@...el.com>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>,
Jonathan Lemon <jonathan.lemon@...il.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, hawk@...nel.org,
bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
intel-wired-lan <intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
"Karlsson, Magnus" <magnus.karlsson@...el.com>,
jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 bpf 1/5] net: ethtool: add xdp properties flag set
Thanks Toke,
In fact, I was waiting for a single confirmation, disagreement or
comment. I have it now. As there are no more comments, I am getting
down to work right away.
Marek
On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 5:16 PM Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> Marek Majtyka <alardam@...il.com> writes:
>
> > I would like to thank you for your time, comments, nitpicking as well
> > as encouraging.
> >
> > One thing needs clarification I think, that is, that those flags
> > describe driver static feature sets - which are read-only. They have
> > nothing in common with driver runtime configuration change yet.
> > Runtime change of this state can be added but it needs a new variable
> > and it can be done later on if someone needs it.
> >
> > Obviously, it is not possible to make everybody happy, especially with
> > XDP_BASE flags set. To be honest, this XDP_BASE definition is a
> > syntactic sugar for me and I can live without it. We can either remove
> > it completely, from
> > which IMO we all and other developers will suffer later on, or maybe
> > we can agree on these two helper set of flags: XDP_BASE (TX, ABORTED,
> > PASS, DROP) and XDP_LIMITED_BASE(ABORTED,PASS_DROP).
> > What do you think?
> >
> > I am also going to add a new XDP_REDIRECT_TARGET flag and retrieving
> > XDP flags over rtnelink interface.
> >
> > I also think that for completeness, ethtool implementation should be
> > kept together with rtnelink part in order to cover both ip and
> > ethtool tools. Do I have your approval or disagreement? Please let me
> > know.
>
> Hi Marek
>
> I just realised that it seems no one actually replied to your email. On
> my part at least that was because I didn't have any objections, so I'm
> hoping you didn't feel the lack of response was discouraging (and that
> you're still working on a revision of this series)? :)
>
> -Toke
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists