From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Roopa Prabhu Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 1/1] net: Support for switch port configuration Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 08:44:23 -0800 Message-ID: <548F0FE7.1080603@cumulusnetworks.com> References: <20141210165018.GG1863@nanopsycho.orion> <54887CF7.70708@gmail.com> <20141215140749.GB21952@casper.infradead.org> <20141215144027.GA21262@casper.infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "Varlese, Marco" , John Fastabend , Jiri Pirko , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , "stephen@networkplumber.org" , "Fastabend, John R" , "sfeldma@gmail.com" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" To: Thomas Graf Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20141215144027.GA21262@casper.infradead.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On 12/15/14, 6:40 AM, Thomas Graf wrote: > On 12/15/14 at 02:29pm, Varlese, Marco wrote: >>> All of these are highly generic and should *not* be passed through from user >>> space to the driver directly but rather be properly abstracted as Roopa >>> proposed. The value of this API is abstraction. >> How would you let the user enable/disable features then? For instance, how would the user enable/disable flooding for broadcast packets (BFLOODING) on a given port? What I was proposing is to have a list of attributes (to be added in if_link.h) which can be tuned by the user using a tool like iproute2. What do you propose? > Excellent, I agree with what you are saying. What set me off is that > the patch does not reflect that yet. Instead, the patch introduces > a pure Netlink pass-through API to the driver. > > I would expect the patch to: > 1. Parse the Netlink messages and be aware of individual attributes > 2. Validate them > 3. Pass the configuration to the driver using an API that can also > be consumed from in-kernel users. yes, exactly. > >> I think I have seen Roopa posting his updated ndo patch and getting some feedback by few people already and as long as I will be able to accomplish the use case described here I am happy with his way. > I think Roopa's patches are supplementary. Not all switchdev users > will be backed with a Linux Bridge. I therefore welcome your patches > very much. > > The overlap is in the ndo. I think both the API you propose and > Roopa's bridge code should use the same NDO. >> I do not have an example right now of a vendor specific attribute but I was just saying that might happen (i.e. someone will have a feature not implemented by others?). > That's fine. Once we have them we can consider adding vendor specific > extensions.