On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 11:23 AM, Amir Vadai" <a...@vadai.me> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 03:07:23PM -0800, John Fastabend wrote:
>> Actually thinking about this a bit more I wrote this thinking >> that there existed some hardware that actually cared if it was >> a new rule or an existing rule. For me it doesn't matter I do >> the same thing in the new/replace cases I just write into the >> slot on the hardware table and if it happens to have something >> in it well its overwritten e.g. "replaced". This works because >> the cls_u32 layer protects us from doing something unexpected. >> I'm wondering (mostly asking the mlx folks) is there hardware >> out there that cares to make this distinction between new and >> replace? Otherwise I can just drop new and always use replace. >> Or vice versa which is the case in its current form. > I don't see a need for such a distinction in mlx hardware. If you (say) have the same match and different action for a given rule we have HW API to modify existing steering entry under which we would end up calling the FW once instead of twice (delete old, add new). Or.
