[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e78cd61cdac6c1abb27b16908c241fd4f8310af9.camel@microchip.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2022 20:32:13 +0100
From: Steen Hegelund <steen.hegelund@...rochip.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
CC: Casper Andersson <casper.casan@...il.com>,
"David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
<UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
Russell King <rmk+kernel@...linux.org.uk>,
"Wan Jiabing" <wanjiabing@...o.com>,
Nathan Huckleberry <nhuck@...gle.com>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Daniel Machon <daniel.machon@...rochip.com>,
Horatiu Vultur <horatiu.vultur@...rochip.com>,
Lars Povlsen <lars.povlsen@...rochip.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 2/5] net: microchip: sparx5: Adding more tc
flower keys for the IS2 VCAP
Hi Jacub,
Thanks for the comments.
On Tue, 2022-11-01 at 08:49 -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
>
> On Tue, 1 Nov 2022 08:31:16 +0100 Steen Hegelund wrote:
> > > Previous series in this context means previous revision or something
> > > that was already merged?
> >
> > Casper refers to this series (the first of the VCAP related series) that was merged on Oct 24th:
> >
> > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20221020130904.1215072-1-steen.hegelund@microchip.com/
>
> Alright, looks like this is only in net-next so no risk of breaking
> existing users.
Yes, this is a new feature.
>
> That said you should reject filters you can't support with an extack
> message set. Also see below.
That should also be the case.
I just checked that using an unsupported key, action or chain will result in an extack error
message.
>
> > > > tc filter add dev eth3 ingress chain 8000000 prio 10 handle 10 \
> > >
> > > How are you using chains?
> >
> > The chain ids are referring to the VCAP instances and their lookups. There are some more
> > details
> > about this in the series I referred to above.
> >
> > The short version is that this allows you to select where in the frame processing flow your rule
> > will be inserted (using ingress or egress and the chain id).
> >
> > > I thought you need to offload FLOW_ACTION_GOTO to get to a chain,
> > > and I get no hits on this driver.
> >
> > I have not yet added the goto action, but one use of that is to chain a filter from one VCAP
> > instance/lookup to another.
> >
> > The goto action will be added in a soon-to-come series. I just wanted to avoid a series getting
> > too
> > large, but on the other hand each of them should provide functionality that you can use in
> > practice.
>
> The behavior of the offload must be the same as the SW implementation.
> It sounds like in your case it very much isn't, as adding rules to
> a magic chain in SW, without the goto will result in the rules being
> unused.
I will add the goto support to my implementation so that it will be consistent with the SW
implementation, adding a check to ensure that there is a goto action when HW offloading.
BR
Steen
Powered by blists - more mailing lists