From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Subash Abhinov Kasiviswanathan Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/1 v2] net: rmnet_data: Initial implementation Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2017 23:43:31 -0600 Message-ID: <59f9a5da83d995c8a572b44c9b248ae2@codeaurora.org> References: <1489390989-2408-1-git-send-email-subashab@codeaurora.org> <1489390989-2408-2-git-send-email-subashab@codeaurora.org> <1490394075.3227.9.camel@redhat.com> <4bd7c38e551505fa8d035d5e1b209d8e@codeaurora.org> <1491000080.13807.1.camel@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, fengguang.wu@intel.com, netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Dan Williams Return-path: Received: from smtp.codeaurora.org ([198.145.29.96]:35268 "EHLO smtp.codeaurora.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750796AbdDAFnd (ORCPT ); Sat, 1 Apr 2017 01:43:33 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1491000080.13807.1.camel@redhat.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: > Yeah, seems quite a bit like VLAN (from a workflow perspective, not > quite as much from a protocol one) and I think the same workflow could > work for this too. Would be nice to eventually get qmi_wwan onto the > same base, if possible (though we'd need to preserve the 802.3 > capability somehow for devices that don't support raw-ip). > > It doesn't necessarily mean that configuration would need to move to > the IP tool. I just used it as an example of how VLAN works and how > rmnet could work as well, quite easily with the ip tool. > > Since the ip tool is based on netlink, both it and your userspace > library could use the same netlink attributes and families to do the > same thing. > > Essentially, I am recommending that instead of your current custom > netlink commands, port them over to rtnetlink which will mean less code > for you, and a more standard kernel interface for everyone. > Thanks for your comments. I'll work on conversion into rtnl_link_ops. Ethernet frames are supported in pass through mode (though not used often) but they cannot be used in conjunction with MAP functionality. > Does the aggregation happen at the level of the raw device, or at the > level of the MUX channels? eg, can I aggregate packets from multiple > MUX channels into the same request, especially on USB devices? > Hardware does allow aggregation of packets from different mux channels in a single frame. > One use-case is to put different packet data contexts into different > namespaces. You could then isolate different EPS/PDP contexts by > putting them into different network namespaces, and for example have > your IMS handler only be able to access its own EPS/PDP context. > > We could already do this with qmi_wwan on devices that provide multiple > USB endpoints for QMI/rmnet, but I thought the point of the MUX > protocol was to allow a single endpoint for rmnet that can MUX multiple > packet data contexts. So it would be nice to allow each rmnet netdev > to be placed into a different network namespace. > I need to study more about namespaces since I am not familiar with it. I'll add support for it in a follow up patchset. > Like a usb gadget rmnet interface for debugging? > Yes, its mostly used for test only.