From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jamal Hadi Salim Subject: Re: [patch net-next v3 04/17] net: introduce generic switch devices support Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 12:08:37 -0500 Message-ID: <5474B795.3080204@mojatatu.com> References: <1416911328-10979-1-git-send-email-jiri@resnulli.us> <1416911328-10979-5-git-send-email-jiri@resnulli.us> <5474A567.4040401@mojatatu.com> <20141125164954.GJ1971@nanopsycho.orion> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, nhorman@tuxdriver.com, andy@greyhouse.net, tgraf@suug.ch, dborkman@redhat.com, ogerlitz@mellanox.com, jesse@nicira.com, pshelar@nicira.com, azhou@nicira.com, ben@decadent.org.uk, stephen@networkplumber.org, jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com, vyasevic@redhat.com, xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com, john.r.fastabend@intel.com, edumazet@google.com, sfeldma@gmail.com, f.fainelli@gmail.com, roopa@cumulusnetworks.com, linville@tuxdriver.com, jasowang@redhat.com, ebiederm@xmission.com, nicolas.dichtel@6wind.com, ryazanov.s.a@gmail.com, buytenh@wantstofly.org, aviadr@mellanox.com, nbd@openwrt.org, alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com, Neil.Jerram@metaswitch.com, ronye@mellanox.com, simon.horman@netronome.com, alexander.h.duyck@redhat.com, john.ronciak@intel.com, mleitner@redhat.com, shrijeet@gmail.com, gospo@cumulusnetworks.com, bcrl@kvack.org To: Jiri Pirko Return-path: Received: from mail-ie0-f172.google.com ([209.85.223.172]:59811 "EHLO mail-ie0-f172.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750891AbaKYRIl (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Nov 2014 12:08:41 -0500 Received: by mail-ie0-f172.google.com with SMTP id tr6so950568ieb.17 for ; Tue, 25 Nov 2014 09:08:41 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20141125164954.GJ1971@nanopsycho.orion> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 11/25/14 11:49, Jiri Pirko wrote: > > What does it do? "L3 switching"? > Absolutely not - that is too easy;-> Why not just a mellanox chip for that? (Testing if Aviad is awake). But flows and associated constructs apply. >> "offload_id" would be the right term. switch doesnt sound right. > > When we talk about this area, we use word "switch". I know it is not > accurate, but in my opinion it is the closest we can get. "chip" and > "ASIC" are too generic I believe. I would not use "offload" cause it wan > be easily mistaken with NIC offloads + it is alsno not accurate. I think this interface is usable for example to offload to user space ala DPDK and friends just as it would be for ASICs or standard NIC offload (which we already have with fdb offload). I dont know what a good name is - but switch looks incorrect. cheers, jamal