From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>
Subject: Re: [patch net-next v3 05/10] net: sched: keep track of offloaded
 filters and check tc offload feature
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2017 10:09:44 +0100
Message-ID: <20171215090944.GB1913@nanopsycho>
References: <20171213151038.29665-1-jiri@resnulli.us>
 <20171213151038.29665-6-jiri@resnulli.us>
 <20171213170555.2a1e3022@cakuba.netronome.com>
 <20171214094716.GA1926@nanopsycho>
 <20171214131045.GD1926@nanopsycho>
 <20171214104941.2f051af1@cakuba.netronome.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, jhs@mojatatu.com,
        xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com, mlxsw@mellanox.com, andrew@lunn.ch,
        vivien.didelot@savoirfairelinux.com, f.fainelli@gmail.com,
        michael.chan@broadcom.com, ganeshgr@chelsio.com,
        saeedm@mellanox.com, matanb@mellanox.com, leonro@mellanox.com,
        idosch@mellanox.com, simon.horman@netronome.com,
        pieter.jansenvanvuuren@netronome.com, john.hurley@netronome.com,
        alexander.h.duyck@intel.com, ogerlitz@mellanox.com,
        john.fastabend@gmail.com, daniel@iogearbox.net
To: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@netronome.com>
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail-wr0-f194.google.com ([209.85.128.194]:40196 "EHLO
        mail-wr0-f194.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1754515AbdLOJJq (ORCPT
        <rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>); Fri, 15 Dec 2017 04:09:46 -0500
Received: by mail-wr0-f194.google.com with SMTP id q9so7439178wre.7
        for <netdev@vger.kernel.org>; Fri, 15 Dec 2017 01:09:46 -0800 (PST)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20171214104941.2f051af1@cakuba.netronome.com>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 07:49:41PM CET, jakub.kicinski@netronome.com wrote:
>On Thu, 14 Dec 2017 14:10:45 +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> >Why? Just a namechange?
>> >
>> >  
>> >>IIUC the problem is we don't know whether the driver/callee of the new
>> >>port is aware of previous callbacks/filters and we can't replay them.  
>> 
>> Well, the problem is a bit different.
>> There are 2 scenarios when we need to fail here:
>> 1) tc offload feature is turned off, there are some filters offloaded in
>>    the block. That is what I commented above.
>> 2) tc offload feature is turned on, there are some filters offloaded in
>>    the block but the block is not accounted by the driver. This is
>>    because of the lack or replay. This is taken care of in the beginning
>>    of __tcf_block_cb_register function - see below, there is a comment
>>    there.
>
>Restating in code terms, shouldn't this:
>
>+	tcf_block_offload_cmd(block, dev, ei, TC_BLOCK_BIND);
>+	return 0;
>
>return the error like this:
>
>	return tcf_block_offload_cmd(block, dev, ei, TC_BLOCK_BIND);
>
>We expect simple drivers to do this:
>
>	case TC_BLOCK_BIND:
>		return tcf_block_cb_register(f->block, mycb,
>					     priv, priv);
>
>Which will return an error for shared offloaded block, just need to
>propagate it.

Got it. Will do. Thanks!