Re: [PATCH iproute2 net-next v1 3/6] taprio: Add support for enabling offload mode

["Patel, Vedang" <vedang.patel@intel.com>]

> On Jun 6, 2019, at 2:46 PM, Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org> wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 6 Jun 2019 21:13:50 +0000
> "Patel, Vedang" <vedang.patel@intel.com> wrote:
> 
>>> On Jun 6, 2019, at 12:43 PM, Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Thu,  6 Jun 2019 10:52:18 -0700
>>> Vedang Patel <vedang.patel@intel.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> @@ -405,6 +420,7 @@ static int taprio_print_opt(struct qdisc_util *qu, FILE *f, struct rtattr *opt)
>>>> 	struct rtattr *tb[TCA_TAPRIO_ATTR_MAX + 1];
>>>> 	struct tc_mqprio_qopt *qopt = 0;
>>>> 	__s32 clockid = CLOCKID_INVALID;
>>>> +	__u32 offload_flags = 0;
>>>> 	int i;
>>>> 
>>>> 	if (opt == NULL)
>>>> @@ -442,6 +458,11 @@ static int taprio_print_opt(struct qdisc_util *qu, FILE *f, struct rtattr *opt)
>>>> 
>>>> 	print_string(PRINT_ANY, "clockid", "clockid %s", get_clock_name(clockid));
>>>> 
>>>> +	if (tb[TCA_TAPRIO_ATTR_OFFLOAD_FLAGS])
>>>> +		offload_flags = rta_getattr_u32(tb[TCA_TAPRIO_ATTR_OFFLOAD_FLAGS]);
>>>> +
>>>> +	print_uint(PRINT_ANY, "offload", " offload %x", offload_flags);  
>>> 
>>> I don't think offload flags should be  printed at all if not present.
>>> 
>>> Why not?  
>> Will make this in the next version.
> 
> Mostly this is so that output doesn't change for users who aren't using offload or have old kernel.
Yes, I agree with that. But, this change alone won’t be enough. There is a minor kernel change also required which will not send the parameters if they are not set. I will include that change in the next version of my kernel patches. 

Iproute2 patches incoming momentarily. This is the v2 which I was supposed to send out.

Thanks,
Vedang