netdev - Re: [PATCH v6 net-next 06/12] flow_offload: allow user to offload tc action to net device

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <6301cf08-b370-665e-5509-146f4cd692a2@mojatatu.com>
Date:   Tue, 14 Dec 2021 07:03:46 -0500
From:   Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>
To:     Baowen Zheng <baowen.zheng@...igine.com>,
        Simon Horman <simon.horman@...igine.com>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Cc:     Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
        Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
        Ido Schimmel <idosch@...dia.com>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>, Oz Shlomo <ozsh@...dia.com>,
        Roi Dayan <roid@...dia.com>, Vlad Buslov <vladbu@...dia.com>,
        Louis Peens <louis.peens@...igine.com>,
        oss-drivers <oss-drivers@...igine.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 net-next 06/12] flow_offload: allow user to offload tc
 action to net device

On 2021-12-12 04:22, Baowen Zheng wrote:
> On December 12, 2021 3:42 AM, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
>> On 2021-12-09 04:28, Simon Horman wrote:
>>> From: Baowen Zheng <baowen.zheng@...igine.com>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>    /* These structures hold the attributes of bpf state that are being
>>> passed diff --git a/include/net/flow_offload.h
>>> b/include/net/flow_offload.h index f6970213497a..15662cad5bca 100644
>>> --- a/include/net/flow_offload.h
>>> +++ b/include/net/flow_offload.h
>>> @@ -551,6 +551,23 @@ struct flow_cls_offload {
>>>    	u32 classid;
>>>    };
>>>
>>> +enum flow_act_command {
>>
>> Readability:
>> flow_offload_act_command?
> Ok, we will make the change.
> maybe it is more proper for "offload_act_command " as we discussed in previous patch?

Ok.


>>
>> mention offload somewhere there?
> For this function of tcf_action_cleanup, it is not only related to offload process, it will also recycle resource for the software action.
> So it is better to keep it as it is now?

make sense - agreed with what you say.


cheers,
jamal