On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 10:20:55AM -0400, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote: > On 08/26/14 16:54, Thomas Graf wrote: > >On 08/26/14 at 01:13pm, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > >>I think it's important distinction. In-kernel OVS is not OF. > >>It's a networking function that has hard-coded packet parser, > >>N-tuple match and programmable actions. > >>There were times when HW vendors were using OF check-box > >>to sell more chips, but at the end there is not a single HW > >>that is fully OF compliant. OF brand is still around, but > >>OF 2.0 is not tcam+action anymore. > >>Imo trying to standardize HW offload interface based on OF 1.x > >>principles is strange. > > > I actually have no issues with whatever classifier someone decides > to use. To each their poison. But I do take issue mandating the > specified classifer it as THE CLASSIFIER as in this case, > is where i start taking issue. I have a few things that i offload > to hardware with speacilized classifiers such that i object strongly > to the approach this driver has taken.
My reading of this thread is that allowing different classifiers is not under dispute. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
