On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 10:59 AM, Vinicius Costa Gomes <vinicius.go...@intel.com> wrote: > Hi, > > Alexander Duyck <alexander.du...@gmail.com> writes: > >> On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 8:04 PM, Brown, Aaron F <aaron.f.br...@intel.com> >> wrote: >>>> From: Intel-wired-lan [mailto:intel-wired-lan-boun...@osuosl.org] On >>>> Behalf Of Vinicius Costa Gomes >>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 7, 2018 4:37 PM >>>> To: intel-wired-...@lists.osuosl.org >>>> Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org; Sanchez-Palencia, Jesus <jesus.sanchez- >>>> palen...@intel.com> >>>> Subject: [Intel-wired-lan] [next-queue PATCH v4 6/8] igb: Add MAC address >>>> support for ethtool nftuple filters >>>> >>>> This adds the capability of configuring the queue steering of arriving >>>> packets based on their source and destination MAC addresses. >>>> >>>> In practical terms this adds support for the following use cases, >>>> characterized by these examples: >>>> >>>> $ ethtool -N eth0 flow-type ether dst aa:aa:aa:aa:aa:aa action 0 >>>> (this will direct packets with destination address "aa:aa:aa:aa:aa:aa" >>>> to the RX queue 0) >>>> >>>> $ ethtool -N eth0 flow-type ether src 44:44:44:44:44:44 action 3 >>>> (this will direct packets with source address "44:44:44:44:44:44" to >>>> the RX queue 3) >>> >>> This seems to work fine on i210, and the patch series allows me to set the >>> rx filters on the i350, i354 and i211, but it is not directing the packets >>> to the queue I request. >>> >>> With the exception of i210 the rx_queues number does not seem to be >>> effected by setting the filter. In the case of i211 the rx packets stay on >>> rx_queue 0 with or without an ether src or dst filter. The first example >>> one seems to work at first since it's directing to queue 0, but changing >>> the filter to "action 1" does not change the behavior. With the i350 and >>> i354 ports the packets are spread across the rx_queues with or without the >>> filter set. >> >> Do any of the other parts actually support this functionality? I don't >> think they do. > > From what I can see, the only other part that supports queue steering (by MAC > addresses) is the 82575. But as I don't have any of those handy, making > it work only for the i210 seems more reasonable, to avoid getting into > this situation again.
That sounds good to me. What you might do is add a comment explaining that this is only supported on 82575 and i210 wherever you put the check that limits this. Then if we have time for the development/validation efforts, or someone in the community does they could take it upon themselves to enable and test it for 82575. I have done similar things in the past. As long as it is clear that the reason why we limited it to i210 is mostly because of development/validation resources somebody else can come along and enable it if they have the resources and time to invest in doing so.
