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 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM,FROM_EXCESS_BASE64, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DCEFC04AB6 for ; Tue, 28 May 2019 17:06:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33BC12173B for ; Tue, 28 May 2019 17:06:34 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="dpPfVtcp" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726526AbfE1RGd (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 May 2019 13:06:33 -0400 Received: from mail-qk1-f193.google.com ([209.85.222.193]:36650 "EHLO mail-qk1-f193.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726515AbfE1RGd (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 May 2019 13:06:33 -0400 Received: by mail-qk1-f193.google.com with SMTP id g18so1835865qkl.3; Tue, 28 May 2019 10:06:33 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ZG+HgSvarrwF5OwHkfKyIqXqPOGoT2iGeVsxoODEAoQ=; b=dpPfVtcpg0pKdtA1+iO1Zeo6QSBLCLrQFuqiPYbn0W7b59LWGr/YzE1GmiX9duMd2B 1FmuujYJAfnPlgWQ6ck2rgHnN5i+O0KJPVlyQCT9xM+kT4cww2m0mJst9cFWprTbcMe9 BS+c9OUo1RkViKpj30EIO03ExOlhAUpPTBU2ihH8k3DhMmBPxQ9y02+Cx7jOiCsaoQ7V XLYRVvssyD1KOiIgEnOnjcgqZscmqrMESKhWPUCdTZUWtznAFrpYOPIm/sHa5U9E10Me W3RXLQETSYeewwE/ggW7MDHbfui2rIThWZ2yOLCTgBOovsqkdcYbg1dpeh/5tY0MzqO5 VJaw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ZG+HgSvarrwF5OwHkfKyIqXqPOGoT2iGeVsxoODEAoQ=; b=gYI6u+kOAA1F+0Yj9ltJ+vQp9KRqRQ1dGWqM4waUJLg53u8EqvgjxsGF/Ygy3+uaxY BAB0swLqF9nvwJGRS8ojrTSz1+J6P6yZksyIDx1Pg0cmqOEQQKq3m8mqd0lls/5ldo7E Cie5p7CKol6GkmhERsri88MvFrJNjdIthoeizSq/j4CEwHf8fgwKZLe1jYKoPujlu104 RHIkYTcTmpzDE7gNdRECK0k5WcUD4+NFyJsPJerf9SXHxqFdUZEKvZyQYyfY73yt+V0e zkdGE/+vFNdr547M+b0zdgqRCKbDGAeC4BU/b/YeRidlN+V3RbD8x1WlNJ7NMXP+WnRi eD4Q== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUmdcL6YfO1LNK40/JecBRcqHuOQ1Illtbwl8Oh+Dv2Q4XjleLE LTO1EHE/lo/t2HtQUjvZzwZsePoqFgReQBy6FOhq8rL8ZJY= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxTuM7O4YTvuIFMdvaIwxYuA39E5SX8NMe5pW8aDcK8VnSxZkjW7cMkPYgWfSueOO0Muu/6dTaDlnZsCsB1RJM= X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:158c:: with SMTP id d12mr74455987qkk.33.1559063192718; Tue, 28 May 2019 10:06:32 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20190522125353.6106-1-bjorn.topel@gmail.com> <20190522125353.6106-2-bjorn.topel@gmail.com> <20190522113212.68aea474@cakuba.netronome.com> In-Reply-To: <20190522113212.68aea474@cakuba.netronome.com> From: =?UTF-8?B?QmrDtnJuIFTDtnBlbA==?= Date: Tue, 28 May 2019 19:06:21 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 1/2] net: xdp: refactor XDP_QUERY_PROG{,_HW} to netdev To: Jakub Kicinski Cc: =?UTF-8?B?VG9rZSBIw7hpbGFuZC1Kw7hyZ2Vuc2Vu?= , Alexei Starovoitov , Daniel Borkmann , Netdev , =?UTF-8?B?QmrDtnJuIFTDtnBlbA==?= , "Karlsson, Magnus" , Jesper Dangaard Brouer , bpf Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: bpf-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: bpf@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 22 May 2019 at 20:32, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > [...] > > You should be able to just call install with the original flags, and > install handler should do the right maths again to direct it either to > drv or generic, no? > On a related note: I ran the test_offload.py test (thanks for pointing that out!), and realized that my view of load flags was incorrect. To double-check: Given an XDP DRV capable netdev "eth0". # ip link set dev eth0 xdp obj foo.o sec .text # ip link set dev eth0 xdpdrv off and # ip link set dev eth0 xdpdrv obj foo.o sec .text # ip link set dev eth0 xdp off and # ip link set dev eth0 xdpdrv obj foo.o sec .text # ip link -force set dev eth0 xdp obj foo.o sec .text and # ip link set dev eth0 xdp obj foo.o sec .text # ip link -force set dev eth0 xdpdrv obj foo.o sec .text Should all fail. IOW, there's a distinction between explicit DRV and auto-detected DRV? It's considered to be different flags. Correct? This was *not* my view. :-) Thanks, Bj=C3=B6rn