From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>
Subject: Re: Hardware capabilities and bonding offload
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 15:05:12 +0100
Message-ID: <20151118140512.GC6123@lunn.ch>
References: <77EF4405DD4BB54AACCE7DB593DF6A9AA0D643@SJEXCHMB14.corp.ad.broadcom.com>
 <20151116153032.GC2217@nanopsycho.orion>
 <5649FFF3.9080401@gmail.com>
 <20151117220349.GA7762@penelope.isobedori.kobe.vergenet.net>
 <564BCD12.4010804@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: Simon Horman <simon.horman@netronome.com>,
	Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>,
	Premkumar Jonnala <pjonnala@broadcom.com>,
	"netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>
To: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from vps0.lunn.ch ([178.209.37.122]:36374 "EHLO vps0.lunn.ch"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1752859AbbKROFR (ORCPT <rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 18 Nov 2015 09:05:17 -0500
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <564BCD12.4010804@gmail.com>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

> To be honest though this is more of an argument in theory versus
> some existing management agent I know of today. If you need to do
> bonding type X in your network and the particular switch doesn't support
> it I'm not even sure what the mgmt layer is going to do. Maybe just
> put the switch offline for that network segment.
> 
> If you leave the sw bit out in the first iteration I'm OK with that
> we can easily add it when we have software that needs it.

Taking a step back...

Have we defined a consistent way for signalling:

1) Failed to offload to the hardware, because the hardware cannot do
   what you requested.
2) Do this in software, rather than trying and failing to offload to
   hardware.

At least in DSA, we return EOPNOTSUP for 1).

   Andrew