From: Roopa Prabhu <roopa@cumulusnetworks.com>
To: David Ahern <dsahern@gmail.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 10:43:17 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAJieiUivWMD_QkqYA6Y08Ru3hCoy==MGaiNq7ma2K06WxgFuRg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <0ba448e3-3c27-d440-ee16-55f778b57bb1@gmail.com>
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 :).
>
> >
> > Together with the existing offload flags for nexthops and neighbours
> > this provides great visibility into the entire offload process.
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-10-04 17:43 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 [this message]
2019-10-04 23:20 ` David Ahern
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='CAJieiUivWMD_QkqYA6Y08Ru3hCoy==MGaiNq7ma2K06WxgFuRg@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=roopa@cumulusnetworks.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=dsahern@gmail.com \
--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=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).