From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ben Hutchings Subject: Re: (Lack of) specification for RX n-tuple filtering Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2010 15:43:57 +0100 Message-ID: <1283870637.2270.10.camel@achroite.uk.solarflarecom.com> References: <1279832544.2104.63.camel@achroite.uk.solarflarecom.com> <4C48BD1A.4060409@chelsio.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Peter Waskiewicz , netdev@vger.kernel.org, David Miller To: Dimitris Michailidis Return-path: Received: from exchange.solarflare.com ([216.237.3.220]:41679 "EHLO exchange.solarflare.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932081Ab0IGOoA (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Sep 2010 10:44:00 -0400 In-Reply-To: <4C48BD1A.4060409@chelsio.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, 2010-07-22 at 14:50 -0700, Dimitris Michailidis wrote: > Ben Hutchings wrote: > > The n-tuple filtering facility is half-baked at present. There is an > > interface to add filters but none to remove them! And ETHTOOL_GRXNTUPLE > > is not at all symmetric with ETHTOOL_SRXNTUPLE (which I complained about > > at the time it was added, to no avail). > > It's a bit worse than that. Currently one can only append filters, not > insert at a given position, as ethtool_rx_ntuple doesn't have an index > field. For devices that use TCAMs, where position matters, it's quite an > obstacle. It also means one cannot modify an existing filter by specifying > a new filter for the same index. It looks like drivers for devices that use TCAMs should implement the RXNFC interface instead. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings, Senior Software Engineer, Solarflare Communications Not speaking for my employer; that's the marketing department's job. They asked us to note that Solarflare product names are trademarked.