Re: [PATCH iproute2] iproute2: unify naming for entries offloaded to hardware

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

On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 06:48:04PM -0700, Scott Feldman wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 5:33 PM, Andy Gospodarek
> <gospo@cumulusnetworks.com> wrote:
> > The kernel now has the capability to offload FDB and FIB entries to hardware.
> > It is important to let users know if table entries are also offloaded to
> > hardware.  Currently offloaded FDB entries are indicated by the existence of
> > the flag 'external' on the entry as of the following commit:
> >
> > commit 28467b7f3facd6114b2fbe0c9fecf57adbd52e12
> > Author: Scott Feldman <sfeldma@gmail.com>
> > Date:   Thu Dec 4 09:57:15 2014 +0100
> >
> >     bridge/fdb: add flag/indication for FDB entry synced from offload device
> >
> > When the patch to add support for indicating that FIB entries were also
> > offloaded as posted to netdev by Scott Feldman it became clear that 'external'
> > would not be an ideal name for routes.  There could definitely be confusion
> > about what this might mean since many routes are to external networks -- a
> > collision/confusion that did not happen with FDB.
> >
> > Scott Feldman asked me to check with others and build concensus around a name.
> > After speaking with several people about this I am proposing we refer to both
> > FDB and FIB entries that are currently backed by hardware (based on the work
> > done in rocker) with the flag 'offload' appended to the end ofthe entry.
> >
> > Some people liked the string 'external,' others liked 'hardware,' but the point
> > is to communicate that these routes are available to something that will will
> > offload the forwarding normally done by the kernel.  Since the term 'offload'
> > is used so frequently it seems appropriate to use the same language in
> > ip/bridge output.
> >
> > The term 'offload' also seems to resonate with many of the people who have
> > responded on Scott's original thread or to those who I reached out to directly
> > and did respond to my query, so it seems we have reached consensus that it
> > should be the term used going forward.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Andy Gospodarek <gospo@cumulusnetworks.com>
> > CC: Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@mojatatu.com>
> > CC: Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com>
> > CC: Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>
> > CC: John W. Linville <linville@tuxdriver.com>
> > CC: Roopa Prabhu <roopa@cumulusnetworks.com>
> > CC: Scott Feldman <sfeldma@gmail.com>
> > CC: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
> 
> Acked-by: Scott Feldman <sfeldma@gmail.com>

FWIW, I have no objections to consistently using "offload".

Acked-by: Simon Horman <simon.horman@netronome.com>