On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 4:25 PM, Jesse Gross <je...@kernel.org> wrote: > On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 7:21 PM, David Miller <da...@davemloft.net> wrote: >> From: Tom Herbert <t...@herbertland.com> >> Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 13:53:44 -0800 >> >>> The bad effect of this model is that it is encourages HW vendors to >>> continue implement HW protocol specific support for encapsulations, we >>> get so much more benefit if they implement protocol generic >>> mechanisms. >> >> +1 > > Regardless of what happens in the future, I think the main question is > how this relates to the code that is currently present in the tree. We > already have NDOs for VXLAN offloading, which is about as protocol > specific as you can get. In my mind, this series is strictly an > improvement to what is already there - it pulls all hardware > offloading code out of the various protocol implementations and VXLAN > out of the driver interface. That seems like a pretty nice cleanup to > me.
Jesse, I don't think VXLAN is a good role model here. Consider that Cisco now is basically trying to obsolete VXLAN in favor of VXLAN-GPE. VXLAN-GPE is not compatible with VXLAN, so in order to get the same HW offloads talking VXLAN-GPE users will probably need to swap out their HW. If I am misreading this situation let me know, but to me this doesn't sound like a model the stack should endorse. Tom -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
