From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jiri Pirko Subject: Re: [jkirsher/next-queue PATCH v4 0/6] tc-flower based cloud filters in i40e Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 23:28:57 +0200 Message-ID: <20171011212857.GE9297@nanopsycho> References: <20171011203832.GA9297@nanopsycho> <20171011.134652.1653141099248918341.davem@davemloft.net> <20171011205830.GD9297@nanopsycho> <20171011.141929.2232480660433567821.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: alexander.duyck@gmail.com, amritha.nambiar@intel.com, intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org, jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com, alexander.h.duyck@intel.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, jhs@mojatatu.com, xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com To: David Miller Return-path: Received: from mail-wm0-f45.google.com ([74.125.82.45]:46356 "EHLO mail-wm0-f45.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750718AbdJKV27 (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Oct 2017 17:28:59 -0400 Received: by mail-wm0-f45.google.com with SMTP id m72so8373596wmc.1 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2017 14:28:59 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20171011.141929.2232480660433567821.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 11:19:29PM CEST, davem@davemloft.net wrote: >From: Jiri Pirko >Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 22:58:30 +0200 > >> Well if I see classid, I expect it should refer to qdisc instance. So >> far, this has been always a case. But for some drivers, this would mean >> something totally different and unrelated. So what should I think? >> What's next? Classid could be abused to identify something else. I don't >> understand why. >> >> classid in kernel and tclass in hw are 2 completely unrelated things. > >Why do they need to be different? > >It's qdisc instance in both cases. The driver is just using it to >refer to the qdisc as offloaded in the hardware. It's a key, nothing >more. The context in which it is used doesn't change it's meaning. > >> Why they should share the same userspace api? What am I missing that >> indicates this is not an abuse? > >Why invent a completely new ID space to refer to something we exactly >have an ID for already? > >This duplication for the sake of "API" makes no sense to me. > >The handle is not going away. It is not going to stop referring to >a specific qdisc. > >So it's stable and appropriate to use to refer to a qdisc, whatever >operation being performed, or offload being we are going to perform of >it. Okay, fair enough. Yet, I can't say I'm happy with it :/ But I guess that what you say makes sense. > >I notice you are quite feisty lately in your reviews of other people's >work, so I have to ask if things are very stressful in your life? :) Yeah, that is probably coincidental. Lots of odd offloading stuff is happening lately. >Please drink a nice warm cup of tea and calm down :-) I'm perfectly calm. But thanks for showing the care :)