On 1/15/26 10:01 PM, Eelco Chaudron wrote:
> 
> 
> On 15 Jan 2026, at 18:44, Ilya Maximets wrote:
>> On 1/15/26 10:19 AM, Eelco Chaudron wrote:
> [...]
> 
>> Thanks, Eelco for the update!  I read through the set again and it
>> reads much easier after the renames.  There are still a few small
>> style issues throughout the set, but they are all minor like an
>> extra empty line at the EOF of dpif-offload.c in patch 7, a few
>> more places with a missing double space or underscore or the thread
>> safety annotations not on a separate line.  There is also a missed
>> rename of dpif_offload_flow_get_n_offloaded() into something like
>> dpif_ofload_flow_count(), since the underlying callback was renamed.
>> And the provider_collection_add() should return a positive errno
>> after all, since it's passed directly into ovs_strerror().
>>
>> As discussed off-list, instead of me writing all of these nits down
>> in the emails and then you fixing them, it's simpler if I just
>> handle the merge and fix the nits on commit.
>>
>> Also, found a couple more issues that we should address:
>>
>> 1. In the first patch, the dpif_offload_dump_next() function is
>>    describing a case that should be impossible, but still tries
>>    to handle it.  We shouldn't do that.  And instead we need to
>>    just take the collection reference in dpif_offload_dump_start()
>>    to make sure the collection doesn't go away during the dump.
>>    And then we can fully rely on the LIST_FOR_EACH_CONTINUE.
>>
>> 2. The per-port priority configuration should be per-interface
>>    instead as datapath doesn't deal with ports, it only works
>>    with interfaces.  And some ports, like bonds can have multiple
>>    interfaces.  It may not be a big deal as in a normal case
>>    I don't think we would need different offload for interfaces
>>    in the same port, but it's not really correct to configure
>>    ports, when it is applied on the interface.
>>
>> And there are two things that I flagged in v5, but we decided to
>> handle separately:
>>
>> 3. Mass-rename of offload provider structures and functions to
>>    make them coherent and shorter than they are.  Most of them
>>    are not exported and don't need extensive prefixes.  And these
>>    prefixes need unification after moving stuff between netdev*
>>    and dpif* modules.
>>
>> 4. Move of the port manager instances from provider-specific
>>    structures to the common struct dpif_offload.  This should
>>    eliminate some duplication and make the module boundaries
>>    more clear.  This should also eliminate the need for the
>>    port dump API or at least significantly simplify it, e.g.
>>    by just iterating over port cmap with a cmap_cursor.
>>
>>
>> So, the situation is the following: We have branching planned for
>> tomorrow.  Full CI run takes about 24 hours.  So, we don't really
>> have time for v7.  We could postpone branching, but it also seems
>> unreasonable as we only really need changes in about 4 patches
>> out of 40, and none of the issues listed above are critical or
>> breaking any functionality.  They are mostly internal code movements.
>> It would be much easier to get the set merged and then work on the
>> 4 items above next week and backport to the new branch.
>>
>> As mentioned earlier, to save some time, I can handle the merging
>> and fix all the small nits on commit instead of wasting a lot of
>> time on writing them down on the mailing list and then Eelco
>> fixing them.
>>
>> Eelco, Aaron, does that sound like a good plan?  Or did I miss
>> anything in my summary?
> 
> Thanks, Ilya, for summarizing our offline discussion! This seems like
> the best way forward, and I will start working on those patches once
> I get back on Monday.

Thanks, Eelco, Eli, and Aaron!  As agreed, I fixed all the small nits
that I saw throughout the set, added ACKs from Aaron, and applied the
set to main.  Also backported patch 34 down to 3.3.

Let's try to get the patches for the remaining 4 items above soon after
branching.

Best regards, Ilya Maximets.
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev

Reply via email to