On 07/20/2018 04:37 PM, Roopa Prabhu wrote: > On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 5:11 PM, Pablo Neira Ayuso <pa...@netfilter.org> > wrote: >> One of the recurring complaints is that we do not have, as a driver >> writer, a central location from which we would be fed offloading rules >> into a NIC. This was brought up again during Netconf'18 in Boston. >> >> This patch just renames ndo_setup_tc to ndo_setup_offload as a very >> early initial work to prepare for follow up patch that discuss unified >> flow representation for the existing offload programming APIs. >> >> Signed-off-by: Pablo Neira Ayuso <pa...@netfilter.org> >> Acked-by: Jiri Pirko <j...@mellanox.com> >> Acked-by: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicin...@netronome.com> > > ok with a rename,...but this seems to be going from a very specific to > a completely generic name. > maybe ndo_setup_flow_offload or ndo_setup_rule_offload might be better ?.
This might be fine as new ndo depending on the use case this will have (?), but fwiw the term 'flow' or 'rule' would be misleading for what tc offload would be doing today (e.g. to name one, there's no notion of 'flow' in BPF offload). Given today this interface is deeply baked into tc, just a rename might not suffice but should probably move the whole handling around it such as assembling the offload info into generic net/core/netdev.c as well if this is the way to go. > (or maybe i am missing some context and this is really for setting up > every possible hardware offload ?)
