From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jiri Pirko Subject: Re: [patch net-next RFC 10/12] openvswitch: add support for datapath hardware offload Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 17:22:17 +0200 Message-ID: <20140826152217.GA1843@nanopsycho.lan> References: <53FA01AC.10507@mojatatu.com> <53FAA2A2.7070801@gmail.com> <53FB3FD5.2030905@mojatatu.com> <20140825141754.GA30140@casper.infradead.org> <53FB6122.2040901@mojatatu.com> <20140825225057.GD30140@casper.infradead.org> <53FC909D.8090000@cumulusnetworks.com> <20140826140630.GA1848@nanopsycho.lan> <53FCA0AE.9010304@mojatatu.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Roopa Prabhu , Thomas Graf , John Fastabend , Scott Feldman , netdev , David Miller , Neil Horman , Andy Gospodarek , dborkman , ogerlitz , jesse@nicira.com, pshelar@nicira.com, azhou@nicira.com, ben@decadent.org.uk, stephen@networkplumber.org, jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com, vyasevic@redhat.com, xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com, john.r.fastabend@intel.com, edumazet@google.com, f.fainelli@gmail.com, linville@tuxdriver.com, dev@openvswitch.org, jasowang@redhat.com, ebiederm@xmission.com, nicolas.dichtel@6wind.com, ryazanov.s.a@gmail.com, buytenh@wantstofly.org, aviadr@mellanox.com, nbd@openwrt.org, alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com, Neil.Jerram@metaswitch.com To: Jamal Hadi Salim Return-path: Received: from mail-wg0-f46.google.com ([74.125.82.46]:43086 "EHLO mail-wg0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751551AbaHZPWX (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Aug 2014 11:22:23 -0400 Received: by mail-wg0-f46.google.com with SMTP id m15so14587446wgh.17 for ; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 08:22:21 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <53FCA0AE.9010304@mojatatu.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 04:58:54PM CEST, jhs@mojatatu.com wrote: >On 08/26/14 10:06, Jiri Pirko wrote: > >>Yes. Flows are phase one. The api will be extended in for whatever is >>needed for l2/l3 as you said. Also I see a possibility to implement the >>l2/l3 use case with flows as well. > >And as a note: This is where i have the disagreement. >It is good there is acknowledgement you are handling flows for now. >Or whatever tuples you defined as "flow". I dont think L2 or 3 fit >in that. If thats not what you are saying then we are in agreement. I do not think that really matters. Phase one is flows. After that we can focus on l2/l3. If we would be able to fit in in flows (some drivers may), then ok. If not, we extend the api with couple of more l2/l3 related ndos. I see no problem there.