From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Roopa Prabhu Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] netdev: introduce new NETIF_F_HW_SWITCH_OFFLOAD feature flag for switch device offloads Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2014 23:46:23 -0800 Message-ID: <5482B44F.2050509@cumulusnetworks.com> References: <1417746401-8140-2-git-send-email-roopa@cumulusnetworks.com> <20141205224320.GA22992@casper.infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: jiri@resnulli.us, sfeldma@gmail.com, jhs@mojatatu.com, bcrl@kvack.org, john.fastabend@gmail.com, stephen@networkplumber.org, linville@tuxdriver.com, nhorman@tuxdriver.com, nicolas.dichtel@6wind.com, vyasevic@redhat.com, f.fainelli@gmail.com, buytenh@wantstofly.org, aviadr@mellanox.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, shm@cumulusnetworks.com, gospo@cumulusnetworks.com To: Thomas Graf Return-path: Received: from ext3.cumulusnetworks.com ([198.211.106.187]:47139 "EHLO ext3.cumulusnetworks.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751466AbaLFHqa (ORCPT ); Sat, 6 Dec 2014 02:46:30 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20141205224320.GA22992@casper.infradead.org> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 12/5/14, 2:43 PM, Thomas Graf wrote: > On 12/04/14 at 06:26pm, roopa@cumulusnetworks.com wrote: >> From: Roopa Prabhu >> >> This is a generic high level feature flag for all switch asic features today. >> >> switch drivers set this flag on switch ports. Logical devices like >> bridge, bonds, vxlans can inherit this flag from their slaves/ports. >> >> I had to use SWITCH in the name to avoid ambiguity with other feature >> flags. But, since i have been harping about not calling it 'switch', >> I am welcome to any suggestions :) >> >> An alternative to using a feature flag is to use a IFF_HW_OFFLOAD >> in net_device_flags. > What does this flag indicate specifically? What driver would > implement ndo_bridge_setlink() but not set this flag? > > I think it should be clearly documented when this flag is to bet set. I mentioned it as an alternative because it was there in my RFC patch. There is no code for it yet. And I will get rid of the comment in v2.