Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 09:12:35AM CET, jakub.kicin...@netronome.com wrote: >On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 08:55:56 +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote: >> Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 08:17:34AM CET, jakub.kicin...@netronome.com wrote: >> >On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 07:25:38 +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote: >> >> Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 03:14:18AM CET, jakub.kicin...@netronome.com wrote: >> >> >On Sun, 12 Nov 2017 16:55:55 +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote: >> >> >> From: Jiri Pirko <j...@mellanox.com> >> >> >> >> >> >> In order to remove tp->q usage in cls_bpf, the offload->netdev check >> >> >> needs to be moved to individual drivers as only they will have access >> >> >> to appropriate struct net_device. >> >> >> >> >> >> Signed-off-by: Jiri Pirko <j...@mellanox.com> >> >> > >> >> >This seems not entirely correct and it adds unnecessary code. I think >> >> > >> >> >> >> What is not correct? >> > >> >From quick reading it looks like you will allow to install the >> >dev-specific filter without skip_sw flag. You haven't fixed what >> >> Right. I see it now. >> >> >> >your previous series broke in cls_bpf offload model and now you >> >> What do you mean exactly? > >As explained elsewhere, cls_bpf used to track what's offloaded and >issue ADD/REPLACE/DESTORY accordingly. Now drivers need to know what >they're offloading, but they still don't. So if you add a filter that >offload successfully and then one that doesn't, the spurious DESTORY >will kill the wrong offload.
Ah, got it. > >> >break it even further. >> > >> >> >the XDP and cls_bpf handling could be unified, making way for binding >> >> >the same program to multiple ports of the same device. Would you mind >> >> >waiting a day for me to send corrections to BPF offload? >> >> >> >> Well I'm trying to get this in before net-next closes... >> > >> >Right, and I'm surprised by that. I'd hope you'll understand my caution >> >here given recent history. >> >> Sure. > >I looked through this series and I can't grasp all the details of how >things are supposed to work from the code here :( Perhaps important >bits went in earlier and I missed them. > >Starting from the most fundamental thing - if I have a shared block >full of skip_sw filters and then bind it to a device which doesn't even >have ndo_setup_tc - what prevents that from happening? Nothing atm. I need to add some check there. Thanks. > >AFACT tcf_block_offload_cmd() is returning void.
