Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 06:41:13PM CET, ro...@cumulusnetworks.com wrote: >On 12/11/14, 8:56 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote: >>Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 05:37:46PM CET, ro...@cumulusnetworks.com wrote: >>>On 12/11/14, 3:01 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote: >>>>Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 10:59:42AM CET, marco.varl...@intel.com wrote: >>>>>>-----Original Message----- >>>>>>From: John Fastabend [mailto:john.fastab...@gmail.com] >>>>>>Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 5:04 PM >>>>>>To: Jiri Pirko >>>>>>Cc: Varlese, Marco; net...@vger.kernel.org; >>>>>>step...@networkplumber.org; Fastabend, John R; >>>>>>ro...@cumulusnetworks.com; sfel...@gmail.com; linux- >>>>>>ker...@vger.kernel.org >>>>>>Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 1/1] net: Support for switch port >>>>>>configuration >>>>>> >>>>>>On 12/10/2014 08:50 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote: >>>>>>>Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 05:23:40PM CET, marco.varl...@intel.com wrote: >>>>>>>>From: Marco Varlese <marco.varl...@intel.com> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Switch hardware offers a list of attributes that are configurable on >>>>>>>>a per port basis. >>>>>>>>This patch provides a mechanism to configure switch ports by adding >>>>>>>>an NDO for setting specific values to specific attributes. >>>>>>>>There will be a separate patch that extends iproute2 to call the new >>>>>>>>NDO. >>>>>>>What are these attributes? Can you give some examples. I'm asking >>>>>>>because there is a plan to pass generic attributes to switch ports >>>>>>>replacing current specific ndo_switch_port_stp_update. In this case, >>>>>>>bridge is setting that attribute. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Is there need to set something directly from userspace or does it make >>>>>>>rather sense to use involved bridge/ovs/bond ? I think that both will >>>>>>>be needed. >>>>>>+1 >>>>>> >>>>>>I think for many attributes it would be best to have both. The in kernel >>>>>>callers >>>>>>and netlink userspace can use the same driver ndo_ops. >>>>>> >>>>>>But then we don't _require_ any specific bridge/ovs/etc module. And we >>>>>>may have some attributes that are not specific to any existing software >>>>>>module. I'm guessing Marco has some examples of these. >>>>>> >>>>>>[...] >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>-- >>>>>>John Fastabend Intel Corporation >>>>>We do have a need to configure the attributes directly from user-space and >>>>>I have identified the tool to do that in iproute2. >>>>> >>>>>An example of attributes are: >>>>>* enabling/disabling of learning of source addresses on a given port (you >>>>>can imagine the attribute called LEARNING for example); >>>>>* internal loopback control (i.e. LOOPBACK) which will control how the >>>>>flow of traffic behaves from the switch fabric towards an egress port; >>>>>* flooding for broadcast/multicast/unicast type of packets (i.e. >>>>>BFLOODING, MFLOODING, UFLOODING); >>>>> >>>>>Some attributes would be of the type enabled/disabled while other will >>>>>allow specific values to allow the user to configure different behaviours >>>>>of that feature on that particular port on that platform. >>>>> >>>>>One thing to mention - as John stated as well - there might be some >>>>>attributes that are not specific to any software module but rather have to >>>>>do with the actual hardware/platform to configure. >>>>> >>>>>I hope this clarifies some points. >>>>It does. Makes sense. We need to expose this attr set/get for both >>>>in-kernel and userspace use cases. >>>> >>>>Please adjust you patch for this. Also, as a second patch, it would be >>>>great if you can convert ndo_switch_port_stp_update to this new ndo. >>>Why are we exposing generic switch attribute get/set from userspace ?. We >>>already have specific attributes for learning/flooding which can be extended >>>further. >>Yes, but that is for PF_BRIDGE and bridge specific attributes. There >>might be another generic attrs, no? >I cant think of any. And plus, the whole point of switchdev l2 offloads was >to map these to existing >bridge attributes. And we already have a match for some of the attributes >that marco wants. > >If there is a need for such attributes, i don't see why it is needed for >switch devices only. >It is needed for any hw (nics etc). And, a precedence to this is to do it via >ethtool.
Fair enough. > >Having said that, am sure we will find a need for this in the future. And >having a netlink attribute always helps. > >Today, it seems like these can be mapped to existing attributes that are >settable via ndo_bridge_setlink/getlink. Okay. That makes sense so far for bridge. > >> >>>And for in kernel api....i had a sample patch in my RFC series (Which i was >>>going to resubmit, until it was decided that we will use existing api around >>>ndo_bridge_setlink/ndo_bridge_getlink): >>>http://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg305473.html >>Yes, this might become handy for other generic non-bridge attrs. >> >>>Thanks, >>>Roopa >>> >>> >>> > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
