[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <eb1111f63fa0767b92ad22be82aeb3fe89bed085.camel@alliedtelesis.co.nz>
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2025 00:41:40 +0000
From: Aryan Srivastava <Aryan.Srivastava@...iedtelesis.co.nz>
To: "andrew@...n.ch" <andrew@...n.ch>
CC: "olteanv@...il.com" <olteanv@...il.com>, "davem@...emloft.net"
<davem@...emloft.net>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "pabeni@...hat.com" <pabeni@...hat.com>,
"kuba@...nel.org" <kuba@...nel.org>, "edumazet@...gle.com"
<edumazet@...gle.com>, "jiri@...nulli.us" <jiri@...nulli.us>,
"horms@...nel.org" <horms@...nel.org>, "netdev@...r.kernel.org"
<netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC net-next v0 2/2] net: dsa: add option for bridge port HW
offload
On Mon, 2024-11-11 at 16:40 +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 11, 2024 at 02:32:17PM +1300, Aryan Srivastava wrote:
> > Currently the DSA framework will HW offload any bridge port if
> > there is
> > a driver available to support HW offloading. This may not always be
> > the
> > preferred case.
> >
> > In cases where the ports on the switch chip are being used as
> > purely L3
> > interfaces, it is preferred that every packet hits the CPU. In the
> > case
> > where these ports are added to a bridge, there is a likelihood of
> > packets completely bypassing the CPU and being switched.
>
> This does not make much sense to me. If it is purely L3, you don't
> need a bridge, since that is only needed for L2.
>
> I think we need more details to understand what you really mean here.
>
> Andrew
Hi Andrew,
Sorry for the belated reply, I will reupload this patch with an updated
commit message.
Aryan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists