Sun, Nov 15, 2015 at 06:51:28AM CET, john.fastab...@gmail.com wrote: >On 15-11-14 01:39 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote: >> Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 05:02:18PM CET, pjonn...@broadcom.com wrote: >>> Packet forwarding to/from bond interfaces is done in software. >>> >>> This patch enables certain platforms to bridge traffic to/from >>> bond interfaces in hardware. Notifications are sent out when >>> the "active" slave set for a bond interface is updated in >>> software. Platforms use the notifications to program the >>> hardware accordingly. The changes have been verified to work >>> with configured and 802.3ad bond interfaces. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Premkumar Jonnala <pjonn...@broadcom.com> >> >> This patch is wrong, in many different acpects. Leaving the submission >> style, and no in-tree consumer aside, adding ndos for this thing is >> unacceptable. It should be handled as a part of switchdev attrs. > >Why is it unacceptable? I think its at least worth debating. If I >have a nic that can do bonding but none of the other switchdev >things then implementing another ndo is certainly more straight >forward. As it is heading many of the 10+Gbps nics may need to >implement just enough of the switchdev infrastructure to get things >like bonding up and working. Not necessarily a bad thing if we make >the switchdev infrastructure light but does sort of make the name >confusing if my nic is not doing any switching ;)
Can you please describe what exaclty such a NIC functionality would look like? If there's not switching/forwarding, then the packets would go trought slow-path (kernel bonding/team driver). So why would we need to tell anything to driver/hw? Thanks. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
