From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4009EC4332F for ; Fri, 4 Nov 2022 15:52:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S231766AbiKDPwi (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Nov 2022 11:52:38 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:57790 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S231854AbiKDPwc (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Nov 2022 11:52:32 -0400 Received: from mail-ej1-x636.google.com (mail-ej1-x636.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::636]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E98F731F81; Fri, 4 Nov 2022 08:52:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ej1-x636.google.com with SMTP id d26so14316651eje.10; Fri, 04 Nov 2022 08:52:28 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=d1/C+CAG7HIMZPrEYMvPPfMFKX7MvL31YyxuzSnzS9E=; b=P5+tv2fWGGt4ZY3EySjNmRHnbhuJldfukMl2yghMgx8c2uFaDSMqTPhZt+WVDW2kCY pOyboLTX+U1LFQt2+ZtytyxG689T/mYAebBG/JNNzYEW3FwEY2MgpqX6HxRvi4Lobp8V 1H7mKY9MJhXkAW0jZ16MGunpDzKtjZCyTc5svSeKPztUgfQyuZQI4lNqbnKNcDOE5WpM 8lhGtW+rJpwzvMdlDe8v21W9jQ74GR6HNUzo/CMFzIRU1gvkf7E9z4w8lKBimUvuBxUz zSbBtVO70WYLNpSdOrTY+JH3hl7QF+xewEbBq6bfLD+MAhQoGtAXTjwM5OhBsLCJfWng jkog== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=d1/C+CAG7HIMZPrEYMvPPfMFKX7MvL31YyxuzSnzS9E=; b=254P0QE8sZZ36RNQU4nhku4oJ8Re41cPLyqTm1k+gjtGHzOfiqZqwAiz+6AsXPjPBR TM1xeKIpUKPAFIYuY0Co6yAYDg9jnXPCYK7gwxpCp9VYnmHL47fMjQ3KUniy7lsVCGV2 ViVekBExD8G5lct+Zj7Cz0SyePTWdGq9fofgtFzUoGzPjSuxuUKmxxU2xjn58/SHJ1Wx ZxKeMSCreD/mVhO6dWMd/3btpz+jB/4wWr71xBdIMdZPGjbFVXooOmYerT+Yy0oNjI7O AAv366T7RBNor4uhmi801DQBW8luagHQUQVfl5XNP3qSBA1YgOe8l33yffyikrKVCvxF C0Wg== X-Gm-Message-State: ACrzQf2bAzkpg/LWzs2O3PUmA71PYr5mX7e4OyTk1/XJrW1X3eZt9DU1 hqLhLzlD1gQj2Iteww3m52s= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMsMyM7Lpztb/R6SD/gKzDWcs5dLDFAM/hoNyxawPMRYlojxQoSNGUomWlIJKvAejIHBmTo5BoafIQ== X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:cc10:b0:7ad:d776:8b7a with SMTP id ml16-20020a170906cc1000b007add7768b7amr26003580ejb.508.1667577147301; Fri, 04 Nov 2022 08:52:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from skbuf ([188.27.184.197]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id f3-20020a056402004300b004611c230bd0sm2089169edu.37.2022.11.04.08.52.26 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Fri, 04 Nov 2022 08:52:26 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2022 17:52:24 +0200 From: Vladimir Oltean To: "Somisetty, Pranavi" Cc: "davem@davemloft.net" , "edumazet@google.com" , "kuba@kernel.org" , "pabeni@redhat.com" , "git (AMD-Xilinx)" , "Katakam, Harini" , "Pandey, Radhey Shyam" , "Simek, Michal" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 0/2] Add support for Frame preemption (IEEE Message-ID: <20221104155224.jqj5axtp5jt77yqt@skbuf> References: <20221103113348.17378-1-pranavi.somisetty@amd.com> <20221103225124.h6nrj2qnypltgqbr@skbuf> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Nov 04, 2022 at 02:08:25PM +0000, Somisetty, Pranavi wrote: > > Have you seen: > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/cover/20220816222920.195 > > 2936-1-vladimir.oltean@nxp.com/ > > Thanks Vladimir, I hadn't, we will try to use your RFC. The point is not to *use* it (you can't even without some major effort - I didn't even publish the user space patches, even though I have ethtool ready and openlldp almost completely ready as well; plus I also did some more rework to the posted RFC, which I didn't repost yet). The point is that the RFC has stalled due to seemingly no clear answers to some fundamental questions about the placement of these new features. It would be good if some extra feedback from people familiar with frame preemption/MAC merge could be provided there. Thanks.