From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Lunn Subject: Re: [for-next 4/6] net/mlx5: FPGA, Add basic support for Innova Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 02:48:44 +0200 Message-ID: <20170607004844.GH18198@lunn.ch> References: <20170606183457.fg7vgv2zji3fhlb5@ast-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com> <20170606.143824.717466091308335341.davem@davemloft.net> <20170606185532.2byjdonwsyan2asl@ast-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com> <20170606.150151.1650636686526694540.davem@davemloft.net> <20170606224451.76732gjmf6vaetxx@ast-mbp> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170606224451.76732gjmf6vaetxx@ast-mbp> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Alexei Starovoitov Cc: David Miller , jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com, ilant@mellanox.com, saeedm@dev.mellanox.co.il, dledford@redhat.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org, jsorensen@fb.com, andy.shevchenko@gmail.com, linux-fpga@vger.kernel.org, yi1.li@linux.intel.com, borisp@mellanox.com List-Id: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 03:44:53PM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 03:01:51PM -0400, David Miller wrote: > > From: Alexei Starovoitov > > Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 11:55:33 -0700 > > > > > If in the future mlx will make it into the nic in a way that > > > encryption shares all memory management logic and there is no fpga > > > at all then it indeed will be similar to tc offload. Right now it's > > > not and needs different sw architecture. > > > > If the visible effect is identical, I fundamentally disagree with you. > > > > I don't care if there is a frog sitting on the PHY that transforms > > the packets, it's all the same if the visible behavior is identical. > > that frog is a good example why we disagree. > I need to check the pulse of that frog and last time it ate. It is probably over-engineered for a single frog, but maybe you could use a modified RFC 2795? Andrew