Re: [PATCH/RFC net-next] tc: allow drivers to accept gact with PIPE when offloading

From: Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@mojatatu.com>
To: Tianyu Yuan <tianyu.yuan@corigine.com>
Cc: Simon Horman <simon.horman@corigine.com>,
	"netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
	Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com>,
	Davide Caratti <dcaratti@redhat.com>,
	Edward Cree <edward.cree@amd.com>,
	Eelco Chaudron <echaudro@redhat.com>,
	Ilya Maximets <i.maximets@ovn.org>,
	Marcelo Leitner <mleitner@redhat.com>,
	Oz Shlomo <ozsh@nvidia.com>, Paul Blakey <paulb@nvidia.com>,
	Vlad Buslov <vladbu@nvidia.com>,
	"dev@openvswitch.org" <dev@openvswitch.org>,
	oss-drivers <oss-drivers@corigine.com>,
	Ziyang Chen <ziyang.chen@corigine.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC net-next] tc: allow drivers to accept gact with PIPE when offloading
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2022 06:35:35 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAM0EoMmPjXvfeGo47KN_rAg-HsFMqK2yku4_BHu0M6G1VH48Pw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <PH0PR13MB47931C1CBABDD4113275A2A994139@PH0PR13MB4793.namprd13.prod.outlook.com>

On Mon, Nov 28, 2022 at 3:56 AM Tianyu Yuan <tianyu.yuan@corigine.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Jamal,
>
>
> When no action is specified, there should not be gact with PIPE, rather than a gact with drop, like:
>

Thanks for the example dumps. I think you should put them in your commit logs.

[..]

>
> About the second scenario of PIPE alone, I don’t think it should exist.
> Besides this adding a PIPE at the first place of a tc filter to update the flow stats, another
> attempt that directly store the flower stats, which is got from driver, in socket transacted
> with userspace (e.g. OVS). In this approach, we don’t have to make changes in driver. Which
> could be a better solution you think for this propose

I was thinking about a case of a filter with no actions but with
interest in a counter for that match.

i.e pseudo-tc-dsl as:
tc filter add ... flower blah action count

which translated is:
tc filter add ... flower blah action pipe

cheers,
jamal