From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Simon Horman Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 9/9] nfp: add control message passing capabilities to flower offloads Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 19:35:29 +0200 Message-ID: <20170629173527.GA18062@vergenet.net> References: <1498681802-2897-1-git-send-email-simon.horman@netronome.com> <1498681802-2897-10-git-send-email-simon.horman@netronome.com> <20170629153012.GE6215@vergenet.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: David Miller , Jakub Kicinski , Linux Netdev List , oss-drivers@netronome.com, Pieter Jansen van Vuuren To: Or Gerlitz Return-path: Received: from mail-qk0-f170.google.com ([209.85.220.170]:33481 "EHLO mail-qk0-f170.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751941AbdF2Rff (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Jun 2017 13:35:35 -0400 Received: by mail-qk0-f170.google.com with SMTP id r62so82306390qkf.0 for ; Thu, 29 Jun 2017 10:35:34 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 06:59:22PM +0300, Or Gerlitz wrote: > On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 6:30 PM, Simon Horman > wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 06:21:53PM +0300, Or Gerlitz wrote: > >> On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 11:30 PM, Simon Horman > >> wrote: > >> > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/netronome/nfp/flower/cmsg.h > >> > @@ -245,7 +245,11 @@ struct nfp_flower_cmsg_hdr { > >> > > >> > /* Types defined for port related control messages */ > >> > enum nfp_flower_cmsg_type_port { > >> > + NFP_FLOWER_CMSG_TYPE_FLOW_ADD = 0, > >> > + NFP_FLOWER_CMSG_TYPE_FLOW_MOD = 1, > >> > >> AFAIU flower offload will always use delete and add and not modify, > >> if you think otherwise, would love to hear that. Didn't see you are using > >> the MOD define in the code anywhere. > > > > The firmware API has a mod operation but you are correct that > > we are not implementing that operation in this patch-set. > > that wasn't my comment. I said that AFAIU flower will never ask you to > modify, they > will ask to delete and later add, so I would be happy to know if you > see it differently. Yes, I agree. Sorry for not answering your question properly the first time.