On 5/4/2016 8:22 PM, John Fastabend wrote:
On 16-05-04 07:47 PM, Patil, Kiran wrote:
On 4/26/2016 8:48 PM, David Miller wrote:
From: Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirs...@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2016 13:55:41 -0700
From: Kiran Patil <kiran.pa...@intel.com>
This patch implements feature, which allows user to change
input set mask for flow director using side-band channel.
This patch adds definition of FLOW_TYPE_MASK into the header file.
With this patch, user can now specify less than 4 tuple(src ip, dsp ip,
src port, dst port) for flow type TCP4/UDP4.
Change-Id: I90052508f8c172c0da5a4b78b949704b4a59ea78
Signed-off-by: Kiran Patil <kiran.pa...@intel.com>
Tested-by: Andrew Bowers <andrewx.bow...@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirs...@intel.com>
If you want to do this, you have to define the semantics generically
in include/uapi/linux/ethtool.h so that other drivers can implement
this too.
Please don't ever implement private, driver specific, interpretations
of the generic ethtool facilitites.
The semantics and interpretations of the values must absolutely be
consistent across all drivers in the tree.
Otherwise the user experience is terrible.
Thanks.
This is not new feature implemented in i40e driver. This is the original
feature of ethtool which allows user to specify subset of tuple for
setting up flow director.
i40e driver using it same way as ixgbe.
Please let us know if I misinterpreted your response.
Would you recommend that we re-submit patch with better patch
description (indicating that it is not new feature but just enabling
feature).
Thanks,
-- Kiran P.
At least define FLOW_TYPE_MASK in ethtool.h then its not
sort of hobbled together in the driver and others can use it
instead of the normal ~FLOW_EXT which I see other drivers used.
Another benefit if its near the definition of the flow types
you have a chance of someone seeing it if they add a flag
past 0xff.
And maybe do it as a separate patch. So you aren't adding normal
driver ethtool implementation and a new #define for all drivers
in the same patch.
.John
Now I see what the problem is (FLOW_TYPE_MASK). Unfortunately it was
never meant to be part of this patch since it was introduced by other
patch (Cloud filter support) and was suggested to move into this header
file. As suggested, we can create another patch just for this
FLOW_TYPE_MASK in ethtool.h and re-work original patch to not have
define for FLOW_TYPE_MASK.
May be we can go back and think, it this define absolutely needed or not.
Thanks,
-- Kiran P.
