From: David Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com>
To: Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>, Roopa Prabhu <roopa@cumulusnetworks.com>
Cc: Ido Schimmel <idosch@idosch.org>, netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
Jiri Pirko <jiri@mellanox.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@netronome.com>,
Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@mellanox.com>, mlxsw <mlxsw@mellanox.com>,
Ido Schimmel <idosch@mellanox.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 12/15] ipv4: Add "in hardware" indication to routes
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2019 20:34:22 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1eea9e93-dbd9-8b50-9bf1-f8f6c6842dcc@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20191002182119.GF2279@nanopsycho>
On 10/2/19 12:21 PM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>>> This patch adds an "in hardware" indication to IPv4 routes, so that
>>> users will have better visibility into the offload process. In the
>>> future IPv6 will be extended with this indication as well.
>>>
>>> 'struct fib_alias' is extended with a new field that indicates if
>>> the route resides in hardware or not. Note that the new field is added
>>> in the 6 bytes hole and therefore the struct still fits in a single
>>> cache line [1].
>>>
>>> Capable drivers are expected to invoke fib_alias_in_hw_{set,clear}()
>>> with the route's key in order to set / clear the "in hardware
>>> indication".
>>>
>>> The new indication is dumped to user space via a new flag (i.e.,
>>> 'RTM_F_IN_HW') in the 'rtm_flags' field in the ancillary header.
>>>
>>
>> nice series Ido. why not call this RTM_F_OFFLOAD to keep it consistent
>> with the nexthop offload indication ?.
>
> See the second paragraph of this description.
I read it multiple times. It does not explain why RTM_F_OFFLOAD is not
used. Unless there is good reason RTM_F_OFFLOAD should be the name for
consistency with all of the other OFFLOAD flags. I realize rtm_flags is
overloaded and the lower 8 bits contains RTNH_F flags, but that can be
managed with good documentation - that RTNH_F is for the nexthop and
RTM_F is for the prefix.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-10-03 2:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 39+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-10-02 8:40 [RFC PATCH net-next 00/15] Simplify IPv4 route offload API Ido Schimmel
2019-10-02 8:40 ` [RFC PATCH net-next 01/15] ipv4: Add temporary events to the FIB notification chain Ido Schimmel
2019-10-02 8:40 ` [RFC PATCH net-next 02/15] ipv4: Notify route after insertion to the routing table Ido Schimmel
2019-10-03 1:34 ` David Ahern
2019-10-03 5:16 ` Ido Schimmel
2019-10-02 8:40 ` [RFC PATCH net-next 03/15] ipv4: Notify route if replacing currently offloaded one Ido Schimmel
2019-10-02 8:40 ` [RFC PATCH net-next 04/15] ipv4: Notify newly added route if should be offloaded Ido Schimmel
2019-10-02 8:40 ` [RFC PATCH net-next 05/15] ipv4: Handle route deletion notification Ido Schimmel
2019-10-02 8:40 ` [RFC PATCH net-next 06/15] ipv4: Handle route deletion notification during flush Ido Schimmel
2019-10-02 8:40 ` [RFC PATCH net-next 07/15] ipv4: Only Replay routes of interest to new listeners Ido Schimmel
2019-10-02 17:44 ` Jiri Pirko
2019-10-03 13:04 ` Ido Schimmel
2019-10-02 8:40 ` [RFC PATCH net-next 08/15] mlxsw: spectrum_router: Start using new IPv4 route notifications Ido Schimmel
2019-10-02 17:52 ` Jiri Pirko
2019-10-02 18:01 ` Jiri Pirko
2019-10-03 15:10 ` Ido Schimmel
2019-10-02 8:40 ` [RFC PATCH net-next 09/15] ipv4: Remove old route notifications and convert listeners Ido Schimmel
2019-10-02 8:40 ` [RFC PATCH net-next 10/15] ipv4: Replace route in list before notifying Ido Schimmel
2019-10-02 8:40 ` [RFC PATCH net-next 11/15] ipv4: Encapsulate function arguments in a struct Ido Schimmel
2019-10-02 8:41 ` [RFC PATCH net-next 12/15] ipv4: Add "in hardware" indication to routes Ido Schimmel
2019-10-02 15:58 ` Roopa Prabhu
2019-10-02 18:21 ` Jiri Pirko
2019-10-03 2:34 ` David Ahern [this message]
2019-10-03 5:37 ` Ido Schimmel
2019-10-04 1:55 ` David Ahern
2019-10-04 14:43 ` Ido Schimmel
2019-10-04 16:38 ` David Ahern
2019-10-04 17:43 ` Roopa Prabhu
2019-10-04 23:20 ` David Ahern
2019-10-03 5:40 ` Jiri Pirko
2019-10-03 12:59 ` Ido Schimmel
2019-10-04 4:25 ` Roopa Prabhu
2019-10-02 8:41 ` [RFC PATCH net-next 13/15] mlxsw: spectrum_router: Mark routes as "in hardware" Ido Schimmel
2019-10-02 18:27 ` Jiri Pirko
2019-10-03 15:16 ` Ido Schimmel
2019-10-02 8:41 ` [RFC PATCH net-next 14/15] netdevsim: fib: " Ido Schimmel
2019-10-02 8:41 ` [RFC PATCH net-next 15/15] selftests: netdevsim: Add test for route offload API Ido Schimmel
2019-10-02 18:17 ` [RFC PATCH net-next 00/15] Simplify IPv4 " Jiri Pirko
2019-10-03 5:18 ` Ido Schimmel
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1eea9e93-dbd9-8b50-9bf1-f8f6c6842dcc@gmail.com \
--to=dsahern@gmail.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=idosch@idosch.org \
--cc=idosch@mellanox.com \
--cc=jakub.kicinski@netronome.com \
--cc=jiri@mellanox.com \
--cc=jiri@resnulli.us \
--cc=mlxsw@mellanox.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=roopa@cumulusnetworks.com \
--cc=saeedm@mellanox.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).