From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Hemminger Subject: Re: [PATCH net 1/2] macvlan: forbid L2 fowarding offload for macvtap Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2014 14:20:15 -0800 Message-ID: <20140109142015.1cd462ed@nehalam.linuxnetplumber.net> References: <52CB7009.2030903@redhat.com> <52CB8D54.9090506@gmail.com> <52CB9D1A.1050101@redhat.com> <52CBAC2A.90005@intel.com> <52CBC22D.3050002@redhat.com> <20140108125528.GC14741@redhat.com> <52CDA186.1080601@gmail.com> <20140109071721.GD19559@redhat.com> <52CE63EB.5000109@redhat.com> <20140109133908.354a4d73@nehalam.linuxnetplumber.net> <20140109220323.GC9385@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Jason Wang , John Fastabend , John Fastabend , Neil Horman , davem@davemloft.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Vlad Yasevich To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20140109220323.GC9385@redhat.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Fri, 10 Jan 2014 00:03:23 +0200 "Michael S. Tsirkin" wrote: > On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 01:39:08PM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > > On Thu, 09 Jan 2014 16:55:07 +0800 > > Jason Wang wrote: > > > > > What if use do want a qdisc and want to change the its queue length for > > > tun/macvlan? And the the name tx_queue_length is misleading. For tun it > > > may make sense since it was used in transmission path. For macvtap it > > > was not. So maybe what we need is just a new ioctl for both tun/macvtap > > > and a new feature flag. If user create the device with new feature flag, > > > the socket receive queue length could be changed by ioctl instead of > > > dev->tx_queue_length. If not, the old behaviour could be kept. > > > > The overloading of tx_queue_len in macvtap was the original design mistake. > > Can't this just be undone and expose rx_queue_len as sysfs attribute? > > Yes but we need to avoid breaking user-visible ABI. I think in this case, it was a mistake and hasn't been around long enough to cause serious damage. > So I think we'll need to catch any access attempts and redirect them to > the new rx_queue_len. I posted a patch like this using new > ndo_set_tx_queue_len/ndo_get_tx_queue_len. Have you seen it? What do > you think? It encourages others to do/make the same mistake so I don't like it.