On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 12:05 PM, ravi kerur <rke...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 11:16 AM, Jesse Gross <je...@nicira.com> wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 9:26 AM, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote: >> > On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 04:13:41PM +0900, Simon Horman wrote: >> >> This patch provides an implementation of the non-datapath portions >> >> of MPLS matches and actions. >> >> >> >> This patch is based on top of Ben Pfaff's series, >> >> "set-field action support" >> >> >> >> Cc: Isaku Yamahata <yamah...@valinux.co.jp> >> >> Cc: Ravi K <rke...@gmail.com> >> > >> > I think Ravi's full last name is "Kerur". >> > >> >> Signed-off-by: Simon Horman <ho...@verge.net.au> >> > >> > Jesse, do you have any concerns about this? I haven't read past the >> > diffstat yet. But if it seems like a reasonable intermediate approach >> > then I'm happy to review it. >> >> I don't think there is inherently anything wrong in starting with a >> userspace-only approach. I have a couple of specific concerns based >> on briefly skimming the patch: >> * It seems like this is really the userspace half of the code which >> assumes that the kernel portions will still be doing the work on the >> actual packet flows. If that's the case then I don't think that >> userspace support can go in independently. Otherwise, userspace >> should really be self-contained and setup slow-path flows to do the >> work itself. > > > mpls userspace is completely self-contained i.e. doesn't depend on OVS > kernel code. I am saying this based on implementation and testing. During > testing no OVS kernel module was loaded and testing such as ping, iperf, > netperf and scp executed.
At the very least, userspace-only code shouldn't add anything to either the userspace/kernel interface or odp-util.c. I also don't see how any MPLS action will actually get processed. I do see that MPLS actions send packets to the local port and then install a flow but I think there is a misunderstanding because that doesn't make a lot of sense to me. >> * If it is truly userspace only, the handling of multiple levels of tags >> seems a little incomplete since we actually have the full packet. > > > Can you elaborate please? Multiple levels of tags aren't handled, for example, when you pop a tag. >> If this is supposed to be a quick stepping stone to kernel support >> that seems less important since we will no longer have complete packet >> access. >> >> So it basically comes down to what the short term plans are. There's >> also Leo's patch (which I haven't looked at) that I can post if there >> are plans to do kernel support. > > > <rk> so will there be separate/different kernel interface? Separate from what? _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
