On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 20:18, Florian Fainelli <f.faine...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 12/3/2020 5:33 PM, Andrew Lunn wrote: >>> Of course, neither is fully correct. There is always more to improve on >>> the communication side of things. >> >> I wonder if switchdev needs to gain an enumeration API? A way to ask >> the underlying driver, what can you offload? The user can then get an >> idea what is likely to be offloaded, and what not. If that API is fine >> grain enough, it can list the different LAG algorithms supported. > > For stack offloads we can probably easily agree on what constitutes a > vendor neutral offload and a name for that enumeration. For other > features this is going to become an unmaintainable list of features and > then we are no better than we started 6 years ago with submitting > OpenWrt's swconfig and each switch driver advertising its features and > configuration API via netlink. > > NETIF_F_SWITCHDEV_OFFLOAD would not be fine grained enough, this needs > to be a per action selection, just like when offloading the bridge, or > tc, you need to be able to hint the driver whether the offload is being > requested by the user.
That makes sense. So you are talking about adding something akin to tc's skip_hw/skip_sw to `ip link`? > For now, I would just go with implicitly falling back to doing the LAG > in software if the requested mode is not supported and leveraging extack > to indicate that was the case. Ahh, you can use extack for successful operations? I did not know that, I think that strikes a good balance.
