From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Fastabend, John R" Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH 7/7] net: ixgbe: add support for tc_u32 offload Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2016 03:27:29 -0800 Message-ID: <56B9CD21.6010305@gmail.com> References: <20160203092708.1356.13733.stgit@john-Precision-Tower-5810> <20160203092959.1356.91778.stgit@john-Precision-Tower-5810> <20160204073050.GA31753@office.Home> <56B30A66.80206@gmail.com> <20160204121209.GA32335@office.Home> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ogerlitz@mellanox.com, jiri@resnulli.us, jhs@mojatatu.com, jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net To: "Amir Vadai\"" Return-path: Received: from mail-ob0-f169.google.com ([209.85.214.169]:33367 "EHLO mail-ob0-f169.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932974AbcBIL1m (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Feb 2016 06:27:42 -0500 Received: by mail-ob0-f169.google.com with SMTP id is5so181990639obc.0 for ; Tue, 09 Feb 2016 03:27:41 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20160204121209.GA32335@office.Home> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: [...] >> Ah I should have annotated this in the commit msg. I turn the feature >> off by default to enable it the user needs to run >> >> # ethtool -K ethx hw-tc-offload on >> >> this is just a habit of mine to leave new features off by default for >> a bit until I work out some of the kinks. For example I found a case >> today where if you build loops into your u32 graph the hardware tables >> can get out of sync with the software tables. This is sort of extreme >> corner case not sure if anyone would really use u32 but it is valid >> and the hardware should abort correctly. > Yeh - that is nice :) But I was just pointing out on a small typo which I > think you have. > The new case will never happen. You compare: (features & NETIF_F_NTUPLE) == NETIF_F_HW_TC > Also the comment before the switch should be modified. Aha nice catch my scripts were enabling both ntuple and hw-tc-offload for testing compatibility issues. I wonder if there is a bug somewhere else though that checks that code most likely because it was definately getting offloaded. Good catch again thanks. > >> >> Thanks, >> John >>