From: David Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com>
To: Roopa Prabhu <roopa@cumulusnetworks.com>
Cc: Ido Schimmel <idosch@idosch.org>, Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>,
netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
Jiri Pirko <jiri@mellanox.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@netronome.com>,
Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@mellanox.com>, mlxsw <mlxsw@mellanox.com>,
Ido Schimmel <idosch@mellanox.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 12/15] ipv4: Add "in hardware" indication to routes
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2019 17:20:40 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <244dca29-67f2-9911-cc3f-56d132967ae6@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJieiUivWMD_QkqYA6Y08Ru3hCoy==MGaiNq7ma2K06WxgFuRg@mail.gmail.com>
On 10/4/19 11:43 AM, Roopa Prabhu wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 9:38 AM David Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 10/4/19 8:43 AM, Ido Schimmel wrote:
>>>> Sounds like there are 2 cases for prefixes that should be flagged to the
>>>> user -- "offloaded" (as in traffic is offloaded) and "in_hw" (prefix is
>>>> in hardware but forwarding is not offloaded).
>>> Sounds good. Are you and Roopa OK with the below?
>>>
>>> RTM_F_IN_HW - route is in hardware
>>> RTM_F_OFFLOAD - route is offloaded
>>>
>>> For example, host routes will have the first flag set, whereas prefix
>>> routes will have both flags set.
>>
>> if "offload" always includes "in_hw", then are both needed? ie., why not
>> document that offload means in hardware with offloaded traffic, and then
>> "in_hw" is a lesser meaning - only in hardware with a trap to CPU?
>
> I was wondering if we can just call these RTM_F_OFFLOAD_TRAP or
> RTM_F_OFFLOAD_ASSIT or something along those lines.
>
> My only concern with the proposed names is, both mean HW offload but
> only one uses HW in the name which can be confusing down the lane :).
sounds good to me.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-10-04 23:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 39+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-10-02 8:40 [RFC PATCH net-next 00/15] Simplify IPv4 route offload API Ido Schimmel
2019-10-02 8:40 ` [RFC PATCH net-next 01/15] ipv4: Add temporary events to the FIB notification chain Ido Schimmel
2019-10-02 8:40 ` [RFC PATCH net-next 02/15] ipv4: Notify route after insertion to the routing table Ido Schimmel
2019-10-03 1:34 ` David Ahern
2019-10-03 5:16 ` Ido Schimmel
2019-10-02 8:40 ` [RFC PATCH net-next 03/15] ipv4: Notify route if replacing currently offloaded one Ido Schimmel
2019-10-02 8:40 ` [RFC PATCH net-next 04/15] ipv4: Notify newly added route if should be offloaded Ido Schimmel
2019-10-02 8:40 ` [RFC PATCH net-next 05/15] ipv4: Handle route deletion notification Ido Schimmel
2019-10-02 8:40 ` [RFC PATCH net-next 06/15] ipv4: Handle route deletion notification during flush Ido Schimmel
2019-10-02 8:40 ` [RFC PATCH net-next 07/15] ipv4: Only Replay routes of interest to new listeners Ido Schimmel
2019-10-02 17:44 ` Jiri Pirko
2019-10-03 13:04 ` Ido Schimmel
2019-10-02 8:40 ` [RFC PATCH net-next 08/15] mlxsw: spectrum_router: Start using new IPv4 route notifications Ido Schimmel
2019-10-02 17:52 ` Jiri Pirko
2019-10-02 18:01 ` Jiri Pirko
2019-10-03 15:10 ` Ido Schimmel
2019-10-02 8:40 ` [RFC PATCH net-next 09/15] ipv4: Remove old route notifications and convert listeners Ido Schimmel
2019-10-02 8:40 ` [RFC PATCH net-next 10/15] ipv4: Replace route in list before notifying Ido Schimmel
2019-10-02 8:40 ` [RFC PATCH net-next 11/15] ipv4: Encapsulate function arguments in a struct Ido Schimmel
2019-10-02 8:41 ` [RFC PATCH net-next 12/15] ipv4: Add "in hardware" indication to routes Ido Schimmel
2019-10-02 15:58 ` Roopa Prabhu
2019-10-02 18:21 ` Jiri Pirko
2019-10-03 2:34 ` David Ahern
2019-10-03 5:37 ` Ido Schimmel
2019-10-04 1:55 ` David Ahern
2019-10-04 14:43 ` Ido Schimmel
2019-10-04 16:38 ` David Ahern
2019-10-04 17:43 ` Roopa Prabhu
2019-10-04 23:20 ` David Ahern [this message]
2019-10-03 5:40 ` Jiri Pirko
2019-10-03 12:59 ` Ido Schimmel
2019-10-04 4:25 ` Roopa Prabhu
2019-10-02 8:41 ` [RFC PATCH net-next 13/15] mlxsw: spectrum_router: Mark routes as "in hardware" Ido Schimmel
2019-10-02 18:27 ` Jiri Pirko
2019-10-03 15:16 ` Ido Schimmel
2019-10-02 8:41 ` [RFC PATCH net-next 14/15] netdevsim: fib: " Ido Schimmel
2019-10-02 8:41 ` [RFC PATCH net-next 15/15] selftests: netdevsim: Add test for route offload API Ido Schimmel
2019-10-02 18:17 ` [RFC PATCH net-next 00/15] Simplify IPv4 " Jiri Pirko
2019-10-03 5:18 ` Ido Schimmel
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=244dca29-67f2-9911-cc3f-56d132967ae6@gmail.com \
--to=dsahern@gmail.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=idosch@idosch.org \
--cc=idosch@mellanox.com \
--cc=jakub.kicinski@netronome.com \
--cc=jiri@mellanox.com \
--cc=jiri@resnulli.us \
--cc=mlxsw@mellanox.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=roopa@cumulusnetworks.com \
--cc=saeedm@mellanox.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).