On 2020-11-25 19:07, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Wed, 25 Nov 2020 18:12:34 +0100 Thomas Karlsson wrote: >>>> For this reason I would like to know if you would consider >>>> merging a patch using the module_param(...) variant instead? >>>> >>>> I would argue that this still makes the situation better >>>> and resolves the packet-loss issue, although not necessarily >>>> in an optimal way. However, The upside of being able to specify the >>>> parameter on a per macvlan interface level instead of globally is not >>>> that big in this situation. Normally you don't use that much >>>> multicast anyway so it's a parameter that only will be touched by >>>> a very small user base that can understand and handle the implications >>>> of such a global setting. >>> >>> How about implementing .changelink in macvlan? That way you could >>> modify the macvlan device independent of Docker? >>> >>> Make sure you only accept changes to the bc queue len if that's the >>> only one you act on. >>> >> >> Hmm, I see. You mean that docker can create the interface and then I can >> modify it afterwards? That might be a workaround but I just submitted >> a patch (like seconds before your message) with the module_param() option >> and this was very clean I think. both in how little code that needed to be >> changed and in how simple it is to set the option in the target environment. >> >> This is my first time ever attemting a contribution to the kernel so >> I'm quite happy to keep it simple like that too :) > > Module params are highly inflexible, we have a general policy not > to accept them in the netdev world. >
I see, although the current define seems even less flexible :) Although, I might not have fully understood the .changelink you suggest. Is it via the ip link set ... command? Or is there a way to set the parameters in a more "raw" form that does not require a patch to iproute2 with parameter parsing, error handing, man pages updates, etc. I feel that I'm getting in over my head here. I appreciate your feedback! > There should even be a check> in our patchwork which should fail here, but it > appears that the patch > did not apply in the first place: > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/patch/385b9b4c-25f5-b507-4e69-419883fa8...@paneda.se/ > > Make sure you're developing on top of this tree: > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/netdev/net-next.git/ > Right, thanks! It's a bit of a learning curve. I had incorrectly done the work on top of torvalds/linux
