Re: [patch net-next v3 02/17] net: make vid as a parameter for ndo_fdb_add/ndo_fdb_del

[Simon Horman <simon.horman@netronome.com>]

On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 11:50:27AM -0500, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
> On 11/25/14 11:30, John Fastabend wrote:
> >On 11/25/2014 08:18 AM, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
> >>On 11/25/14 11:01, John Fastabend wrote:
> >>>On 11/25/2014 07:38 AM, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
> >>>>On 11/25/14 05:28, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> >>>>>Do the work of parsing NDA_VLAN directly in rtnetlink code, pass simple
> >>>>>u16 vid to drivers from there.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> 
> 
> >Actually (after having some coffee) this becomes much more useful
> >if you return which items failed. Then you can slam the hardware
> >with your 100 entries, probably a lot more then that, and come back
> >later and clean it up.
> >
> 
> Yes, that is the general use case.
> Unfortunately at the moment we only return codes on a netlink set
> direction - but would be a beauty if we could return what succeeded
> and didnt in some form of vector.
> Note: all is not lost because you can always do a get afterwards and
> find what is missing if you got a return code of "partial success".
> Just a little less efficient..

I agree entirely. But efficiency may be a very real issue in practice.

> >We return a bitmask of which operations were successful. So if SW fails
> >we have both bits cleared and we abort. When SW is successful we set the
> >SW bit and try to program the HW. If its sucessful we set the HW bit if
> >its not we abort with an err. Converting this to (1) is not much work
> >just skip the abort.
> >
> 
> Ok, guess i am gonna have to go stare at the code some more.
> I thought we returned one of the error codes?
> A bitmask would work for a single entry - because you have two
> options add to h/ware and/or s/ware. So response is easy to encode.
> But if i have 1000 and they are sparsely populated (think an indexed
> table and i have indices 1, 23, 45, etc), then a bitmask would be
> hard to use.
> 
> cheers,
> jamal