Re: [RFC 0/5] add XDP support to mt76x2e/mt76x0e drivers

["Toke Høiland-Jørgensen" <toke@toke.dk>]

Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net> writes:

> On Mon, 2018-12-03 at 21:36 +0200, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>> Hi Johannes
>> 
>> I think your email can be basically summed up to:
>> 
>> > [ ... ] but really I think it's a can of worms.
>> 
>> ...right? :)
>
> Heh, yeah :)
>
>> I sort of had a feeling it would be, but thank you for spelling out in
>> excruciating detail why that is so.
>
> :-)
>
>> Given this, I think I agree that it's not worth it for now, and we
>> should hold off on adding XDP support until we have 802.3/.11
>> conversion offload working... Which I think is also where you ended
>> up? :)
>
> That case is at least easy, yeah. And it seems kinda likely that we'll
> end up with that in all well-maintained drivers in the relatively near
> future anyway?

Right; you probably know that better than me :)

> BTW, in a sense I still kind of want to add eBPF to the mac80211 ingress
> path, just not in the XDP sense. For example, I had a proposal a while
> ago to add a filter to the monitor mode RX path(s) in eBPF; I still
> think that's useful.
>
> I also think it may be useful to put eBPF programs into per-netdev
> ingress path, in order to e.g. collect statistics, rather than hard-
> coding all kinds of statistics into mac80211.
>
> All of these things I consider absolutely useful and helpful. I like
> eBPF and the flexibility it affords. I just really don't think we should
> call it XDP or let it do similar things to XDP like dropping or
> redirecting frames.

Absolutely; totally on board with that!

-Toke