Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH iwl-next v4 09/13] ice: Accept LAG netdevs in bridge offloads

From: Simon Horman <simon.horman@corigine.com>
To: "Drewek, Wojciech" <wojciech.drewek@intel.com>
Cc: "pmenzel@molgen.mpg.de" <pmenzel@molgen.mpg.de>,
	"netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
	"intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org"
	<intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org>,
	"dan.carpenter@linaro.org" <dan.carpenter@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH iwl-next v4 09/13] ice: Accept LAG netdevs in bridge offloads
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2023 11:23:01 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZH769agjmFeTLkq9@corigine.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <MW4PR11MB5776E0183A1A0683D726F0EFFD4DA@MW4PR11MB5776.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>

On Mon, Jun 05, 2023 at 05:12:39PM +0000, Drewek, Wojciech wrote:
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Simon Horman <simon.horman@corigine.com>
> > Sent: niedziela, 4 czerwca 2023 18:07
> > To: Drewek, Wojciech <wojciech.drewek@intel.com>
> > Cc: intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org; netdev@vger.kernel.org; Lobakin, Aleksander <aleksander.lobakin@intel.com>; Ertman, David M
> > <david.m.ertman@intel.com>; michal.swiatkowski@linux.intel.com; marcin.szycik@linux.intel.com; Chmielewski, Pawel
> > <pawel.chmielewski@intel.com>; Samudrala, Sridhar <sridhar.samudrala@intel.com>; pmenzel@molgen.mpg.de;
> > dan.carpenter@linaro.org
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH iwl-next v4 09/13] ice: Accept LAG netdevs in bridge offloads
> > 
> > On Wed, May 24, 2023 at 02:21:17PM +0200, Wojciech Drewek wrote:
> > > Allow LAG interfaces to be used in bridge offload using
> > > netif_is_lag_master. In this case, search for ice netdev in
> > > the list of LAG's lower devices.
> > 
> > Hi Wojciech,
> > 
> > As this uses the first lower device found that is an ICE netdev, it is a
> > little unclear to me how this handles the (likely) case of a LAG having
> > more than one lower device, each of which are ICE netdevs belonging to the
> > same eswitch. And the perhaps less likely case where it has more than
> > once lower devices, but they don't all belong to the same ICE eswitch.
> 
> The only use case here is Active-Backup bond which is send in separate patchset[1].
> 6th patch of the series[2] makes sure that that below scenarios will not happen:
> - non-ice devices
> - more than 2 devices
> So the only possible scenario would be 2 PFs of the same nic bonded together.
> In this patch we want to handle the situation when such bond is added to the bridge.

Thanks, I think that should cover the bases.
Although I haven't reviewed [2] (yet).

> Maybe we should wait with this patch until the LAG series will be accepted?

Yes, perhaps that is a good idea.

> [1] http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/intel-wired-lan/list/?series=355487&state=*
> [2] http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/intel-wired-lan/patch/20230517230028.321350-7-david.m.ertman@intel.com/
_______________________________________________
Intel-wired-lan mailing list
Intel-wired-lan@osuosl.org
https://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-wired-lan