From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: John Fastabend Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] net: Add layer 2 hardware acceleration operations for macvlan devices Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2013 15:39:01 -0700 Message-ID: <52533805.2010607@gmail.com> References: <20131007.155214.2232375975382665567.davem@davemloft.net> <20131007212000.GA1596@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> <20131007.173433.163556658910279518.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: nhorman@tuxdriver.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: David Miller Return-path: Received: from mail-ie0-f174.google.com ([209.85.223.174]:41247 "EHLO mail-ie0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751881Ab3JGWjN (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Oct 2013 18:39:13 -0400 Received: by mail-ie0-f174.google.com with SMTP id u16so17190313iet.19 for ; Mon, 07 Oct 2013 15:39:13 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20131007.173433.163556658910279518.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 10/07/2013 02:34 PM, David Miller wrote: > From: Neil Horman > Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2013 17:20:00 -0400 > >> Thats me experimenting. I was thinking that origionally this functionality >> might be grouped separately, so that we could handle it independently of the >> standard network device operations (you might have noticed in v1 of my patch I >> had a size_t variable in there, so I thought the separation might be >> organizationally nice). It was also something I was tinkering with for >> potential future work to support other data plane accelerators (like the FM6000 >> switch chip from intel) in a manner that didn't pollute the more typical host network >> devices. Like I said though, just experimenting at the moment.... > We can do something like the dcbnl ops and add another pointer off the net device structure and then use the skb->dev field to find the correct set of ops? This seems like the simplest option to me and isolates the ops structure. Is there some information loss from hanging it off the netdevice structure vs the skb? I can't see any. > Can these dataplane devices still act like a normal networking port and > send and receive packets at the host level? > Yes they act like normal networking ports except for there is a switching component in the hardware. These patches are not looking at virtual or multiple physical functions at the moment. > If yes, that would be an extremely strong argument for netdev_ops. I agree. -- John Fastabend Intel Corporation