From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jamal Hadi Salim Subject: Re: [patch net-next RFC 10/12] openvswitch: add support for datapath hardware offload Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2014 12:37:05 -0400 Message-ID: <5404A0B1.1030009@mojatatu.com> References: <20140826140630.GA1848@nanopsycho.lan> <53FCA0AE.9010304@mojatatu.com> <20140826152217.GA1843@nanopsycho.lan> <53FCA7C6.5070804@mojatatu.com> <20140826154459.GB1843@nanopsycho.lan> <20140826155426.GA5275@gospo.rtplab.test> <20140826161956.GA15316@casper.infradead.org> <20140826205419.GH15316@casper.infradead.org> <54008C47.5040503@mojatatu.com> <20140901081343.GC12731@vergenet.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ryazanov.s.a-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org, ronye-VPRAkNaXOzVWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org, jasowang-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, john.r.fastabend-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org, Neil.Jerram-QnUH15yq9NYqDJ6do+/SaQ@public.gmane.org, Eric Dumazet , Andy Gospodarek , "dev-yBygre7rU0TnMu66kgdUjQ@public.gmane.org" , nbd-p3rKhJxN3npAfugRpC6u6w@public.gmane.org, Florian Fainelli , Andy Gospodarek , Shrijeet Mukherjee , John Fastabend , jeffrey.t.kirsher-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org, ogerlitz , ben-/+tVBieCtBitmTQ+vhA3Yw@public.gmane.org, buytenh-OLH4Qvv75CYX/NnBR394Jw@public.gmane.org, Jiri Pirko , Roopa Prabhu , aviadr-VPRAkNaXOzVWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org, Nicolas Dichtel , vyasevic-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, Neil Horman , netdev , Stephen Hemminger , dborkman , "Eric W. Biederman" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20140901081343.GC12731-IxS8c3vjKQDk1uMJSBkQmQ@public.gmane.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces-yBygre7rU0TnMu66kgdUjQ@public.gmane.org Sender: "dev" List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On 09/01/14 04:13, Simon Horman wrote: > On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 10:20:55AM -0400, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote: >> I actually have no issues with whatever classifier someone decides >> to use. To each their poison. But I do take issue mandating the >> specified classifer it as THE CLASSIFIER as in this case, >> is where i start taking issue. I have a few things that i offload >> to hardware with speacilized classifiers such that i object strongly >> to the approach this driver has taken. > > My reading of this thread is that allowing different classifiers > is not under dispute. I am not sure how you reached that conclusion by reading this thread;-> But i would be glad if that was the conclusion and i missed it. cheers, jamal