From: Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@gmail.com>
To: Sabrina Dubroca <sd@queasysnail.net>
Cc: Jay Vosburgh <jv@jvosburgh.net>,
Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@lunn.ch>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>,
Nikolay Aleksandrov <razor@blackwall.org>,
Ido Schimmel <idosch@nvidia.com>, Simon Horman <horms@kernel.org>,
Sridhar Samudrala <sridhar.samudrala@intel.com>,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
bridge@lists.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 1/5] net: add ndo_update_offloads for offload computation
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2026 02:02:53 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <abtZTceO0xHKf1F3@fedora> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <abs1VWLQVmXcWESQ@krikkit>
On Thu, Mar 19, 2026 at 12:29:25AM +0100, Sabrina Dubroca wrote:
> 2026-03-18, 01:15:20 +0000, Hangbin Liu wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 17, 2026 at 04:14:35PM +0100, Sabrina Dubroca wrote:
> > > 2026-03-16, 12:26:09 +0800, Hangbin Liu wrote:
> > > > Add a new ndo_update_offloads callback to net_device_ops that allows
> > > > devices to compute and update their offload features during feature
> > > > updates.
> > > >
> > > > This callback enables master devices to recompute their features
> > > > based on current slave device configuration. This is particularly
> > > > useful for bonding, bridging, team, and failover devices that need
> > > > to aggregate features from their lower devices.
> > > >
> > > > The callback is optional and only implemented by devices that need
> > > > dynamic offload feature computation.
> > >
> > > Maybe a dumb idea (and sorry to suggest this quite late in your
> > > submissions): since all implementations of this callback are only
> > > calling netdev_compute_master_upper_features(), does this need to be a
> > > new ndo, or could this be some kind of flag within struct net_device
> >
> > Ideally all dev with IFF_MASTER should re-compute the offload. But at present
> > some master devices do have this flag, or have their own offload
> > implementation.
> >
> > Do you mean add a new private flag, like IFF_RECOMPUTE_OFFLOAD? For the second
> > parameter, maybe we can pass false for bridge specifically.
>
> I hadn't thought specifically about where to store that flag. As a
> private flag, why not (this should be internal to the kernel, so not a
> uapi flag like IFF_MASTER), but priv_flags is marked as "hotpath" now,
> so maybe something similar to needs_free_netdev or
> netns_immutable. Either way, then devices are free to do their own
> magic, or request the core to call
> netdev_compute_master_upper_features() for them in some common
> locations. Does that makes sense?
This looks better than private flags. I just feel this magic hide a little
deep for a common master feature.
Thanks
Hangbin
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-03-19 2:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-03-16 4:26 [PATCH net-next v3 0/5] net: centralize master device offload feature computation Hangbin Liu
2026-03-16 4:26 ` [PATCH net-next v3 1/5] net: add ndo_update_offloads for offload computation Hangbin Liu
2026-03-17 15:14 ` Sabrina Dubroca
2026-03-18 1:15 ` Hangbin Liu
2026-03-18 23:29 ` Sabrina Dubroca
2026-03-19 2:02 ` Hangbin Liu [this message]
2026-03-16 4:26 ` [PATCH net-next v3 2/5] net: use ndo_update_offloads to set offload features for bonding/bridge/team Hangbin Liu
2026-03-19 9:16 ` [net-next,v3,2/5] " Paolo Abeni
2026-03-16 4:26 ` [PATCH net-next v3 3/5] macsec: move netdev_upper_dev_link() after macsec_changelink_common() Hangbin Liu
2026-03-17 11:58 ` Sabrina Dubroca
2026-03-16 4:26 ` [PATCH net-next v3 4/5] failover: use ndo_update_offloads for failover offload compute Hangbin Liu
2026-03-16 4:26 ` [PATCH net-next v3 5/5] net: no need to disable LRO specifically Hangbin Liu
2026-03-19 9:52 ` [PATCH net-next v3 0/5] net: centralize master device offload feature computation Paolo Abeni
2026-03-19 13:37 ` Hangbin Liu
2026-03-19 16:01 ` Jakub Kicinski
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=abtZTceO0xHKf1F3@fedora \
--to=liuhangbin@gmail.com \
--cc=andrew+netdev@lunn.ch \
--cc=bridge@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=horms@kernel.org \
--cc=idosch@nvidia.com \
--cc=jiri@resnulli.us \
--cc=jv@jvosburgh.net \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
--cc=razor@blackwall.org \
--cc=sd@queasysnail.net \
--cc=sridhar.samudrala@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.