Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 07:39:51AM CEST, f.faine...@gmail.com wrote: >On 09/19/14 15:18, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote: >>On 09/19/14 18:12, John Fastabend wrote: >>>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? >>> >> >> >>Actually I just realized i missed something very basic that >>Jiri said. I think i understand the tool being there for testing >>but i am assumed the same about the genlink api. >>Jiri, are you saying that genlink api is there to >>stay? > >So, I really have mixed feelings about this netlink API, in particular >because it is not clear to me where is the line between what should be a >network device ndo operation, what should be an ethtool command, what should >be a netlink message, and the rest.
Well as I said, this api should serve for flow manipulation only, therefore swdev flow related ndos are used. > >I can certainly acknowledge the fact that manipulating flows is not ideal >with the current set of tools, but really once we are there with netlink, how >far are we from not having any network devices at all, and how does that >differ from OpenWrt's swconfig in the end [1]? I'm all ears on proposals how to make flow manipulation better. > >[1]: https://lwn.net/Articles/571390/ >-- >Florian _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
