From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Toke =?unknown-8bit?q?H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen?= Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2021 17:16:01 +0100 Subject: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH v2 bpf 1/5] net: ethtool: add xdp properties flag set In-Reply-To: References: <20201204102901.109709-1-marekx.majtyka@intel.com> <20201204102901.109709-2-marekx.majtyka@intel.com> <878sad933c.fsf@toke.dk> <20201204124618.GA23696@ranger.igk.intel.com> <048bd986-2e05-ee5b-2c03-cd8c473f6636@iogearbox.net> <20201207135433.41172202@carbon> <5fce960682c41_5a96208e4@john-XPS-13-9370.notmuch> <20201207230755.GB27205@ranger.igk.intel.com> <5fd068c75b92d_50ce20814@john-XPS-13-9370.notmuch> <20201209095454.GA36812@ranger.igk.intel.com> <20201209125223.49096d50@carbon> <1e5e044c8382a68a8a547a1892b48fb21d53dbb9.camel@kernel.org> <6f8c23d4ac60525830399754b4891c12943b63ac.camel@kernel.org> Message-ID: <87h7mvsr0e.fsf@toke.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: intel-wired-lan@osuosl.org List-ID: Marek Majtyka writes: > I would like to thank you for your time, comments, nitpicking as well > as encouraging. > > One thing needs clarification I think, that is, that those flags > describe driver static feature sets - which are read-only. They have > nothing in common with driver runtime configuration change yet. > Runtime change of this state can be added but it needs a new variable > and it can be done later on if someone needs it. > > Obviously, it is not possible to make everybody happy, especially with > XDP_BASE flags set. To be honest, this XDP_BASE definition is a > syntactic sugar for me and I can live without it. We can either remove > it completely, from > which IMO we all and other developers will suffer later on, or maybe > we can agree on these two helper set of flags: XDP_BASE (TX, ABORTED, > PASS, DROP) and XDP_LIMITED_BASE(ABORTED,PASS_DROP). > What do you think? > > I am also going to add a new XDP_REDIRECT_TARGET flag and retrieving > XDP flags over rtnelink interface. > > I also think that for completeness, ethtool implementation should be > kept together with rtnelink part in order to cover both ip and > ethtool tools. Do I have your approval or disagreement? Please let me > know. Hi Marek I just realised that it seems no one actually replied to your email. On my part at least that was because I didn't have any objections, so I'm hoping you didn't feel the lack of response was discouraging (and that you're still working on a revision of this series)? :) -Toke