From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jiri Pirko Subject: Re: [patch net-next 6/9] net: sched: cls_flower: propagate chain teplate creation and destruction to drivers Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2018 08:40:12 +0200 Message-ID: <20180626064012.GP2161@nanopsycho> References: <20180625210148.9386-1-jiri@resnulli.us> <20180625210148.9386-7-jiri@resnulli.us> <20180625220050.0ff6d44c@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, simon.horman@netronome.com, john.hurley@netronome.com, dsahern@gmail.com, mlxsw@mellanox.com To: Jakub Kicinski Return-path: Received: from mail-wr0-f194.google.com ([209.85.128.194]:34629 "EHLO mail-wr0-f194.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751902AbeFZGlc (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Jun 2018 02:41:32 -0400 Received: by mail-wr0-f194.google.com with SMTP id a12-v6so15967431wro.1 for ; Mon, 25 Jun 2018 23:41:32 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180625220050.0ff6d44c@cakuba.netronome.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 07:00:50AM CEST, jakub.kicinski@netronome.com wrote: >On Mon, 25 Jun 2018 23:01:45 +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote: >> From: Jiri Pirko >> >> Introduce a couple of flower offload commands in order to propagate >> template creation/destruction events down to device drivers. >> Drivers may use this information to prepare HW in an optimal way >> for future filter insertions. >> >> Signed-off-by: Jiri Pirko > >> diff --git a/net/sched/cls_flower.c b/net/sched/cls_flower.c >> index d64d43843a3a..276ba25a09c3 100644 >> --- a/net/sched/cls_flower.c >> +++ b/net/sched/cls_flower.c >> @@ -1120,6 +1120,43 @@ static void fl_walk(struct tcf_proto *tp, struct tcf_walker *arg) >> } >> } >> >> +static void fl_hw_create_tmplt(struct tcf_chain *chain, >> + struct fl_flow_tmplt *tmplt, >> + struct netlink_ext_ack *extack) >> +{ >> + struct tc_cls_flower_offload cls_flower = {}; >> + struct tcf_block *block = chain->block; >> + struct tcf_exts dummy_exts = { 0, }; >> + >> + cls_flower.common.chain_index = chain->index; > >Did you skip extack on purpose? Oh, the extack is leftover. I will remove it in v2. > >> + cls_flower.command = TC_CLSFLOWER_TMPLT_CREATE; >> + cls_flower.cookie = (unsigned long) tmplt; >> + cls_flower.dissector = &tmplt->dissector; >> + cls_flower.mask = &tmplt->mask; >> + cls_flower.key = &tmplt->dummy_key; >> + cls_flower.exts = &dummy_exts; >> + >> + /* We don't care if driver (any of them) fails to handle this >> + * call. It serves just as a hint for it. >> + */ >> + tc_setup_cb_call(block, NULL, TC_SETUP_CLSFLOWER, >> + &cls_flower, false); >> +}