Re: [PATCH v2 bpf 1/5] net: ethtool: add xdp properties flag set

From: Marek Majtyka <alardam@gmail.com>
To: "Toke Høiland-Jørgensen" <toke@redhat.com>
Cc: "Saeed Mahameed" <saeed@kernel.org>,
	"David Ahern" <dsahern@gmail.com>,
	"Maciej Fijalkowski" <maciej.fijalkowski@intel.com>,
	"John Fastabend" <john.fastabend@gmail.com>,
	"Jesper Dangaard Brouer" <jbrouer@redhat.com>,
	"Daniel Borkmann" <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
	"Maciej Fijalkowski" <maciejromanfijalkowski@gmail.com>,
	"Björn Töpel" <bjorn.topel@intel.com>,
	"Andrii Nakryiko" <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com>,
	"Jonathan Lemon" <jonathan.lemon@gmail.com>,
	"Alexei Starovoitov" <ast@kernel.org>,
	"Network Development" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
	hawk@kernel.org, bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>,
	intel-wired-lan <intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org>,
	"Jakub Kicinski" <kuba@kernel.org>,
	"Karlsson, Magnus" <magnus.karlsson@intel.com>,
	jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 bpf 1/5] net: ethtool: add xdp properties flag set
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2021 12:26:32 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAAOQfrHA+-BsikeQzXYcK_32BZMbm54x5p5YhAiBj==uaZvG1w@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87h7mvsr0e.fsf@toke.dk>

Thanks Toke,

In fact, I was waiting for a single confirmation, disagreement or
comment. I have it now. As there are no more comments, I am getting
down to work right away.

Marek

On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 5:16 PM Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> Marek Majtyka <alardam@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > I would like to thank you for your time, comments, nitpicking as well
> > as encouraging.
> >
> > One thing needs clarification I think, that is, that those flags
> > describe driver static feature sets - which are read-only. They have
> > nothing in common with driver runtime configuration change yet.
> > Runtime change of this state can be added but it needs a new variable
> > and it can be done later on if someone needs it.
> >
> > Obviously, it is not possible to make everybody happy, especially with
> > XDP_BASE flags set. To be honest, this XDP_BASE definition is a
> > syntactic sugar for me and I can live without it. We can either remove
> > it completely, from
> > which IMO we all and other developers will suffer later on, or maybe
> > we can agree on these two helper set of flags: XDP_BASE (TX, ABORTED,
> > PASS, DROP) and XDP_LIMITED_BASE(ABORTED,PASS_DROP).
> > What do you think?
> >
> > I am also going to add a new XDP_REDIRECT_TARGET flag and retrieving
> > XDP flags over rtnelink interface.
> >
> > I also think that for completeness, ethtool implementation should be
> > kept  together with rtnelink part in order to cover both ip and
> > ethtool tools. Do I have your approval or disagreement? Please let me
> > know.
>
> Hi Marek
>
> I just realised that it seems no one actually replied to your email. On
> my part at least that was because I didn't have any objections, so I'm
> hoping you didn't feel the lack of response was discouraging (and that
> you're still working on a revision of this series)? :)
>
> -Toke
>