From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Phil Sutter Subject: Re: [RFC net-next 4/6] netdevsim: add software driver for testing offloads Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2017 15:55:30 +0100 Message-ID: <20171128145530.GA23377@orbyte.nwl.cc> References: <20171124023613.16855-1-jakub.kicinski@netronome.com> <20171124023613.16855-5-jakub.kicinski@netronome.com> <20171128.043026.1559245605707710598.davem@davemloft.net> <20171127114249.111b1825@cakuba.netronome.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: David Miller , netdev@vger.kernel.org, oss-drivers@netronome.com, daniel@iogearbox.net, alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com, jiri@resnulli.us, Sabrina Dubroca To: Jakub Kicinski Return-path: Received: from orbyte.nwl.cc ([151.80.46.58]:45946 "EHLO orbyte.nwl.cc" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752298AbdK1Ozi (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Nov 2017 09:55:38 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20171127114249.111b1825@cakuba.netronome.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi, On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 11:42:49AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Tue, 28 Nov 2017 04:30:26 +0900 (KST), David Miller wrote: > > From: Jakub Kicinski > > Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2017 18:36:11 -0800 > > > > > The dummy driver have previously been extended to test SR-IOV, > > > but the general consensus seems to be against adding further > > > features to it. > > > > I guess this is fine, but then is it going to be the case that > > every time we want to add a software offload implementation for > > testing driver paths we add yet another dummy driver? > > I would expect others to extend the netdevsim driver, so all test/SW > implementation would live there. > > I was considering moving the SR-IOV code over, too, but I'm worried > I will break existing tests. Phil, Sabrina would you be OK with that? Yes, that's fine with us! Thanks, Phil