On 09/19/2014 10:57 AM, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote: > On 09/19/14 11:49, Jiri Pirko wrote: >> Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 05:25:48PM CEST, j...@mojatatu.com wrote: > >>> Is this just a temporary test tool? Otherwise i dont see reason >>> for its existence (or the API that it feeds on). >> >> Please read the conversation I had with Pravin and Jesse in v1 thread. >> Long story short they like to have the api separated from ovs datapath >> so ovs daemon can use it to directly communicate with driver. Also John >> Fastabend requested a way to work with driver flows without using ovs -> >> that was the original reason I created switchdev genl api. >> >> Regarding the "sw" tool, yes it is for testing purposes now. ovs daemon >> will use directly switchdev genl api. >> >> I hope I cleared this out. >> > > It is - thanks Jiri. > > cheers, > jamal
Hi Jiri, I was considering a slightly different approach where the device would report via netlink the fields/actions it supported rather than creating pre-defined enums for every possible key. I already need to have an API to report fields/matches that are being supported why not have the device report the headers as header fields (len, offset) and the associated parse graph the hardware uses? Vendors should have this already to describe/design their real hardware. As always its better to have code and when I get some time I'll try to write it up. Maybe its just a separate classifier although I don't actually want two hardware flow APIs. I see you dropped the RFC tag are you proposing we include this now? .John _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
