From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2226BC07E9B for ; Tue, 20 Jul 2021 14:37:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3F436100C for ; Tue, 20 Jul 2021 14:37:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S239442AbhGTN41 (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Jul 2021 09:56:27 -0400 Received: from new3-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.229]:47961 "EHLO new3-smtp.messagingengine.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S239381AbhGTNol (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Jul 2021 09:44:41 -0400 Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal [10.202.2.44]) by mailnew.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17D085817C0; Tue, 20 Jul 2021 10:25:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 20 Jul 2021 10:25:14 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; bh=oKT1WX Jb/HN94UGHcLFzU5g6VlqwSc1m1B9YQun33OY=; b=GQgHzO7TrAUYpGsJLVp0o0 CwKqVARMvtwiYdLx/oHzRSuyVo0WBe9zpDc1mKSRBHRT+G+z3HBa+t5jeLwOsQMJ YjJ5hiiBy2TOKgmDqEUeVabaYOY5lyG4E7i73Us41m8/I3m/M1WTkC8hAd3udrUg gHhCKIWPcwcJZsPuZtn4nspNqhIbmvbhQrXX+V33QkvTg77zHrPg8csEGp40LrFX YOXLWIwllIJ9LCSO6u+zQUNWEfxaTh5CMBV1JQBmpTG+gpQj6KrvzYkz2QPnK0PW p5Vu4M1G9+W9Ixm63q7VwDCgL+HZHnq1va/kIpCrP29aueVJqJgSrpdIBefuiXzQ == X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvtddrfedvgdejgecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenuc fjughrpeffhffvuffkfhggtggujgesthdtrodttddtvdenucfhrhhomhepkfguohcuufgt hhhimhhmvghluceoihguohhstghhsehiughoshgthhdrohhrgheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvg hrnhepgfejvefhvdegiedukeetudevgeeujeefffeffeetkeekueeuheejudeltdejuedu necuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepihguoh hstghhsehiughoshgthhdrohhrgh X-ME-Proxy: Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Tue, 20 Jul 2021 10:25:11 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2021 17:25:08 +0300 From: Ido Schimmel To: Vladimir Oltean Cc: "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , Jakub Kicinski , "David S. Miller" , Andrew Lunn , Florian Fainelli , Vivien Didelot , Jiri Pirko , Tobias Waldekranz , Roopa Prabhu , Nikolay Aleksandrov , Stephen Hemminger , "bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org" , Grygorii Strashko , Marek Behun , DENG Qingfang Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 net-next 00/10] Let switchdev drivers offload and unoffload bridge ports at their own convenience Message-ID: References: <20210720134655.892334-1-vladimir.oltean@nxp.com> <20210720141200.xgk3mlipp2mzerjl@skbuf> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20210720141200.xgk3mlipp2mzerjl@skbuf> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 02:12:01PM +0000, Vladimir Oltean wrote: > On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 05:01:48PM +0300, Ido Schimmel wrote: > > > The patches were split from a larger series for easier review: > > > > This is not what I meant. I specifically suggested to get the TX > > forwarding offload first and then extending the API with an argument to > > opt-in for the replay / cleanup: > > Yeah, ok, I did not get that and I had already reposted by the time you > clarified, sorry. > > Anyway, is it so bad that we cannot look at the patches in the order > that they are in right now (even if this means that maybe a few more > days would pass)? To me it makes a bit more sense anyway to first > consolidate the code that is already in the tree right now, before > adding new logic. And I don't really want to rebase the patches again to > change the ordering and risk a build breakage without a good reason. If you don't want to change the order, then at least make the replay/cleanup optional and set it to 'false' for mlxsw. This should mean that the only change in mlxsw should be adding calls to switchdev_bridge_port_offload() / switchdev_bridge_port_unoffload() in mlxsw_sp_bridge_port_create() / mlxsw_sp_bridge_port_destroy(), respectively. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; bh=oKT1WX Jb/HN94UGHcLFzU5g6VlqwSc1m1B9YQun33OY=; b=GQgHzO7TrAUYpGsJLVp0o0 CwKqVARMvtwiYdLx/oHzRSuyVo0WBe9zpDc1mKSRBHRT+G+z3HBa+t5jeLwOsQMJ YjJ5hiiBy2TOKgmDqEUeVabaYOY5lyG4E7i73Us41m8/I3m/M1WTkC8hAd3udrUg gHhCKIWPcwcJZsPuZtn4nspNqhIbmvbhQrXX+V33QkvTg77zHrPg8csEGp40LrFX YOXLWIwllIJ9LCSO6u+zQUNWEfxaTh5CMBV1JQBmpTG+gpQj6KrvzYkz2QPnK0PW p5Vu4M1G9+W9Ixm63q7VwDCgL+HZHnq1va/kIpCrP29aueVJqJgSrpdIBefuiXzQ == Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2021 17:25:08 +0300 From: Ido Schimmel Message-ID: References: <20210720134655.892334-1-vladimir.oltean@nxp.com> <20210720141200.xgk3mlipp2mzerjl@skbuf> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20210720141200.xgk3mlipp2mzerjl@skbuf> Subject: Re: [Bridge] [PATCH v5 net-next 00/10] Let switchdev drivers offload and unoffload bridge ports at their own convenience List-Id: Linux Ethernet Bridging List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Vladimir Oltean Cc: Andrew Lunn , Florian Fainelli , Jiri Pirko , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , "bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org" , Vivien Didelot , DENG Qingfang , Grygorii Strashko , Nikolay Aleksandrov , Roopa Prabhu , Jakub Kicinski , Marek Behun , "David S. Miller" , Tobias Waldekranz On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 02:12:01PM +0000, Vladimir Oltean wrote: > On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 05:01:48PM +0300, Ido Schimmel wrote: > > > The patches were split from a larger series for easier review: > > > > This is not what I meant. I specifically suggested to get the TX > > forwarding offload first and then extending the API with an argument to > > opt-in for the replay / cleanup: > > Yeah, ok, I did not get that and I had already reposted by the time you > clarified, sorry. > > Anyway, is it so bad that we cannot look at the patches in the order > that they are in right now (even if this means that maybe a few more > days would pass)? To me it makes a bit more sense anyway to first > consolidate the code that is already in the tree right now, before > adding new logic. And I don't really want to rebase the patches again to > change the ordering and risk a build breakage without a good reason. If you don't want to change the order, then at least make the replay/cleanup optional and set it to 'false' for mlxsw. This should mean that the only change in mlxsw should be adding calls to switchdev_bridge_port_offload() / switchdev_bridge_port_unoffload() in mlxsw_sp_bridge_port_create() / mlxsw_sp_bridge_port_destroy(), respectively.