From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eric Dumazet Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next RFC] Generic XDP Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2017 09:28:08 -0700 Message-ID: <1491928088.10587.63.camel@edumazet-glaptop3.roam.corp.google.com> References: <20170409.133528.660876505013192371.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, xdp-newbies@vger.kernel.org To: David Miller Return-path: Received: from mail-pg0-f50.google.com ([74.125.83.50]:36476 "EHLO mail-pg0-f50.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750732AbdDKQ2L (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Apr 2017 12:28:11 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20170409.133528.660876505013192371.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sun, 2017-04-09 at 13:35 -0700, David Miller wrote: > This provides a generic non-optimized XDP implementation when the > device driver does not provide an optimized one. > > It is arguable that perhaps I should have required something like > this as part of the initial XDP feature merge. > > I believe this is critical for two reasons: > > 1) Accessibility. More people can play with XDP with less > dependencies. Yes I know we have XDP support in virtio_net, but > that just creates another depedency for learning how to use this > facility. > > I wrote this to make life easier for the XDP newbies. > > 2) As a model for what the expected semantics are. If there is a pure > generic core implementation, it serves as a semantic example for > driver folks adding XDP support. > Nice ! It seems that this implementation is not vlan aware ? It seems that some native XDP implementations are not vlan aware as well. Probably need to disable VLAN acceleration when/if XDP is used.