Re: [patch net-next v3 15/17] bridge: add new hwmode swdev

Thomas Graf
2014-11-25T23:00:54Z

On 11/25/14 at 11:07am, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
> On 11/25/14 05:28, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> >From: Scott Feldman <sfeldma@gmail.com>
> >
> >Current hwmode settings are "vepa" or "veb". These are for NIC interfaces
> >with basic bridging function offloaded to HW. Add new "swdev" for full
> >switch device offloads.
> >
> >Signed-off-by: Scott Feldman <sfeldma@gmail.com>
> >Signed-off-by: Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>
> >---
> >new in v3
> >---
> > include/uapi/linux/if_bridge.h | 1 +
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> >
> >diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/if_bridge.h b/include/uapi/linux/if_bridge.h
> >index da17e45..60425ca 100644
> >--- a/include/uapi/linux/if_bridge.h
> >+++ b/include/uapi/linux/if_bridge.h
> >@@ -105,6 +105,7 @@ struct __fdb_entry {
> >
> > #define BRIDGE_MODE_VEB 0 /* Default loopback mode */
> > #define BRIDGE_MODE_VEPA 1 /* 802.1Qbg defined VEPA mode */
> >+#define BRIDGE_MODE_SWDEV 2 /* Full switch device offload */
> >
> > /* Bridge management nested attributes
> > * [IFLA_AF_SPEC] = {
> >
>
> Again - Why is this not a generic interface the way Roopa had it?
> We need to do offloads for a lot of other things than just bridge..

I agree in general but I'm not sure we should mirror the NETIF_F_*
approach. Even the relatively simple encap offload has turned into
a complex set of feature bitmasks requiring harmonization.

I think we should discuss this in the context of John's work which
neatly abstracts the capabilities.