From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2AB583AC22; Thu, 14 Aug 2025 13:44:54 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1755179096; cv=none; b=VVF+FWJsjq7RkxBbWRDAiPOh542u66vCkaK5mV68/EQvOGFpAkMWWk/3+B0db1fR+pFZj0BuekeiyXYn+oyQQ240s3Ww1sC0oIRMu0dRmrxHlsDYj33O3ojB3iZ0YptcVKH8n/IFjJkQFAdBzRwPHaY+DG+Qqcsy1twH9okbvYw= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1755179096; c=relaxed/simple; bh=eZxSUhPR9dmQ4lFwMM6GT4qCLe9UaSmB4btAA1xP9Vg=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=CdMlzrNAJLDqU2LCCBv/E4GBXQIEBeb03KCrJqJhDbFubcG0/jVvunOIFAlv2JUgBC3FLz9GzmhWegMa1fY8vXUdWuIEsGJSf0DGoTtYv3jDUVj+optKfezv0wi0kRYudIY+v1RMVYmZKPeJH0q01/v3e5F/is+gwfO+JNAKrNo= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=T1lOc6Ki; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="T1lOc6Ki" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 082CAC4CEED; Thu, 14 Aug 2025 13:44:51 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1755179094; bh=eZxSUhPR9dmQ4lFwMM6GT4qCLe9UaSmB4btAA1xP9Vg=; h=Date:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:In-Reply-To:From; b=T1lOc6Ki9/E/Igz7aECcF7MMg5BHBfKmAKnQpbBY37170RnJHYJVS6vkN+AIuNmv/ flRScqDVYrQ31aVX5ya2G9B94+XhkSuwE90a7MUJ4zhxq6X2ZOxamdaYpOyYZGeNKl 3bJlveXXJDAUJFzSE2Wq74SiIMzDkVUIxjb7jfn7zS8ORhE18U9HkjSFiiN2Z3UhGl ckKroI07jWO3moDNy5tOJC7xMh4StnxzjApV56Ichf9J/hH9QOZj0cotmz3pXoiUR5 dC9igsF3GptCcl7A/6E+bbTohtEL95WBrhYsl2Lec9OJ5ZHesJBT1RDRV4NMqsqjMW oeUiWxqmBb3BA== Message-ID: <32e6bb4b-711c-455e-bfa4-2c0b2011e1ec@kernel.org> Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2025 16:44:49 +0300 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v4 8/9] net: ethernet: ti: am65-cpsw: add network flow classification support To: Jakub Kicinski Cc: Siddharth Vadapalli , Andrew Lunn , "David S. Miller" , Eric Dumazet , Paolo Abeni , Russell King , danishanwar@ti.com, srk@ti.com, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20250514-am65-cpsw-rx-class-v4-0-5202d8119241@kernel.org> <20250514-am65-cpsw-rx-class-v4-8-5202d8119241@kernel.org> <20250516182902.5a5bfd98@kernel.org> <20250813074803.06db304a@kernel.org> Content-Language: en-US From: Roger Quadros In-Reply-To: <20250813074803.06db304a@kernel.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 13/08/2025 17:48, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Wed, 13 Aug 2025 16:49:27 +0300 Roger Quadros wrote: >> On 17/05/2025 04:29, Jakub Kicinski wrote: >>> On Wed, 14 May 2025 15:04:28 +0300 Roger Quadros wrote: >>>> The TRM doesn't mention anything about order of evaluation of the >>>> classifier rules however it does mention in [1] >>>> "if multiple classifier matches occur, the highest match >>>> with thread enable bit set will be used." >>> >>> So we're not sure how to maintain the user requested ordering? >> >> Currently we are using the user/ethtool provided location as is. >> >>> Am I reading this correctly? If so then .. >>> >>>> + if (fs->location == RX_CLS_LOC_ANY || >>> >>> .. why are we rejecting LOC_ANY? >> >> Because driver doesn't have logic to decide the location and relies on ethtool to >> decide it if user doesn't supply it. > > The location supplied by the user may have semantic significance. > IOW locations may be interpreted as priorities. OK. Is there any convention on location vs priority for user or it is driver dependent? i.e. Does higher location mean higher priority? > It's better to support LOC_ANY and add the 10 lines of code to > allocate the id in the driver.. OK. I did more tests and it seems that higher locations in the classifier override the lower locations. With this new information, what is the best approach? I can add support for LOC_ANY with logic to find first available free location. If driver supports LOC_ANY, does driver also need to support explicit location supplied by user? In this case I think user convention and driver convention of location vs priority must match. -- cheers, -roger