From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [PATCH ethtool] ethtool: Add support for WAKE_FILTER Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2018 12:07:37 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20180803.120737.323954671047489933.davem@davemloft.net> References: <47f52797-1540-5eeb-5ea8-3c0984fdfb11@gmail.com> <20180801.093219.1548098195820479887.davem@davemloft.net> <56447ed2-c441-81e5-3219-b2f6329366d1@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, linville@tuxdriver.com, andrew@lunn.ch, vivien.didelot@savoirfairelinux.com To: f.fainelli@gmail.com Return-path: Received: from shards.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.9]:38054 "EHLO shards.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1729367AbeHCVFN (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Aug 2018 17:05:13 -0400 In-Reply-To: <56447ed2-c441-81e5-3219-b2f6329366d1@gmail.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: Florian Fainelli Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2018 10:57:13 -0700 > Does the current approach of specifying a bitmask of filters looks > reasonable to you though? So, in order to answer that, I need some clarification. The mask, as I see it, is a bit map of 48 possible positions (SOPASS_MAX * bits_per_byte). How do these bits map to individual rxnfc entries? Are they locations? If so, how are special locations handled? What about "special" locations, where the driver and/or hardware are supposed to decide the location based upon the "special" type used? If you considered the following, and you explained why it won't work, I apologize. But I'm wondering why you just don't find some way to specify this as a boolean of the flow spec in the rxnfc request or similar? That, at least semantically, seems to avoids several issues. And it is unambiguous what flow rule the wake filter boolean applies to. Right?