From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Simon Horman <simon.horman@netronome.com>
Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH v3 3/8] net: sched: add cls_u32 offload hooks
 for netdevs
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2016 12:37:15 +0900
Message-ID: <20160219033712.GA5799@vergenet.net>
References: <20160217051418.17139.41052.stgit@john-Precision-Tower-5810>
 <20160217051709.17139.88337.stgit@john-Precision-Tower-5810>
 <56C4528E.5090505@mojatatu.com>
 <56C48295.9030806@gmail.com>
 <56C4FD2B.9000009@gmail.com>
 <20160218092335.GA15192@office.Home>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>,
	Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@mojatatu.com>, jiri@resnulli.us,
	davem@davemloft.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
	jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com
To: "Amir Vadai\"" <amir@vadai.me>
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail-pf0-f169.google.com ([209.85.192.169]:35245 "EHLO
	mail-pf0-f169.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1423529AbcBSDhb (ORCPT
	<rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>); Thu, 18 Feb 2016 22:37:31 -0500
Received: by mail-pf0-f169.google.com with SMTP id c10so44561288pfc.2
        for <netdev@vger.kernel.org>; Thu, 18 Feb 2016 19:37:31 -0800 (PST)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20160218092335.GA15192@office.Home>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 11:23:35AM +0200, Amir Vadai" wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 03:07:23PM -0800, John Fastabend wrote:
> > [...]
> > 
> > >>
> > >>> +static void u32_replace_hw_hnode(struct tcf_proto *tp, struct
> > >>> tc_u_hnode *h)
> > >>> +{
> > >>> +    struct net_device *dev = tp->q->dev_queue->dev;
> > >>> +    struct tc_cls_u32_offload u32_offload = {0};
> > >>> +    struct tc_to_netdev offload;
> > >>> +
> > >>> +    offload.type = TC_SETUP_CLSU32;
> > >>> +    offload.cls_u32 = &u32_offload;
> > >>> +
> > >>> +    if (dev->netdev_ops->ndo_setup_tc) {
> > >>> +        offload.cls_u32->command = TC_CLSU32_NEW_HNODE;
> > >>
> > >> TC_CLSU32_REPLACE_HNODE?
> > >>
> > > 
> > > Yep I made this change and will send out v4.
> > > 
> > > [...]
> > > 
> > >>
> > 
> > Actually thinking about this a bit more I wrote this thinking
> > that there existed some hardware that actually cared if it was
> > a new rule or an existing rule. For me it doesn't matter I do
> > the same thing in the new/replace cases I just write into the
> > slot on the hardware table and if it happens to have something
> > in it well its overwritten e.g. "replaced". This works because
> > the cls_u32 layer protects us from doing something unexpected.
> > 
> > I'm wondering (mostly asking the mlx folks) is there hardware
> > out there that cares to make this distinction between new and
> > replace? Otherwise I can just drop new and always use replace.
> > Or vice versa which is the case in its current form.
> I don't see a need for such a distinction in mlx hardware.

FWIW, I think it is unlikely such a distinction would
be needed for Netronome hardware.