[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <MW4PR11MB5776E0183A1A0683D726F0EFFD4DA@MW4PR11MB5776.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2023 17:12:39 +0000
From: "Drewek, Wojciech" <wojciech.drewek@...el.com>
To: Simon Horman <simon.horman@...igine.com>
CC: "intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org" <intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, "Lobakin, Aleksander"
<aleksander.lobakin@...el.com>, "Ertman, David M" <david.m.ertman@...el.com>,
"michal.swiatkowski@...ux.intel.com" <michal.swiatkowski@...ux.intel.com>,
"marcin.szycik@...ux.intel.com" <marcin.szycik@...ux.intel.com>,
"Chmielewski, Pawel" <pawel.chmielewski@...el.com>, "Samudrala, Sridhar"
<sridhar.samudrala@...el.com>, "pmenzel@...gen.mpg.de"
<pmenzel@...gen.mpg.de>, "dan.carpenter@...aro.org"
<dan.carpenter@...aro.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH iwl-next v4 09/13] ice: Accept LAG netdevs in bridge
offloads
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Simon Horman <simon.horman@...igine.com>
> Sent: niedziela, 4 czerwca 2023 18:07
> To: Drewek, Wojciech <wojciech.drewek@...el.com>
> Cc: intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org; netdev@...r.kernel.org; Lobakin, Aleksander <aleksander.lobakin@...el.com>; Ertman, David M
> <david.m.ertman@...el.com>; michal.swiatkowski@...ux.intel.com; marcin.szycik@...ux.intel.com; Chmielewski, Pawel
> <pawel.chmielewski@...el.com>; Samudrala, Sridhar <sridhar.samudrala@...el.com>; pmenzel@...gen.mpg.de;
> dan.carpenter@...aro.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH iwl-next v4 09/13] ice: Accept LAG netdevs in bridge offloads
>
> On Wed, May 24, 2023 at 02:21:17PM +0200, Wojciech Drewek wrote:
> > Allow LAG interfaces to be used in bridge offload using
> > netif_is_lag_master. In this case, search for ice netdev in
> > the list of LAG's lower devices.
>
> Hi Wojciech,
>
> As this uses the first lower device found that is an ICE netdev, it is a
> little unclear to me how this handles the (likely) case of a LAG having
> more than one lower device, each of which are ICE netdevs belonging to the
> same eswitch. And the perhaps less likely case where it has more than
> once lower devices, but they don't all belong to the same ICE eswitch.
The only use case here is Active-Backup bond which is send in separate patchset[1].
6th patch of the series[2] makes sure that that below scenarios will not happen:
- non-ice devices
- more than 2 devices
So the only possible scenario would be 2 PFs of the same nic bonded together.
In this patch we want to handle the situation when such bond is added to the bridge.
Maybe we should wait with this patch until the LAG series will be accepted?
[1] http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/intel-wired-lan/list/?series=355487&state=*
[2] http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/intel-wired-lan/patch/20230517230028.321350-7-david.m.ertman@intel.com/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists