Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Date | Mon, 15 Dec 2014 08:44:23 -0800 | From | Roopa Prabhu <> | Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 1/1] net: Support for switch port configuration |
| |
On 12/15/14, 6:40 AM, Thomas Graf wrote: > On 12/15/14 at 02:29pm, Varlese, Marco wrote: >>> All of these are highly generic and should *not* be passed through from user >>> space to the driver directly but rather be properly abstracted as Roopa >>> proposed. The value of this API is abstraction. >> How would you let the user enable/disable features then? For instance, how would the user enable/disable flooding for broadcast packets (BFLOODING) on a given port? What I was proposing is to have a list of attributes (to be added in if_link.h) which can be tuned by the user using a tool like iproute2. What do you propose? > Excellent, I agree with what you are saying. What set me off is that > the patch does not reflect that yet. Instead, the patch introduces > a pure Netlink pass-through API to the driver. > > I would expect the patch to: > 1. Parse the Netlink messages and be aware of individual attributes > 2. Validate them > 3. Pass the configuration to the driver using an API that can also > be consumed from in-kernel users. yes, exactly. > >> I think I have seen Roopa posting his updated ndo patch and getting some feedback by few people already and as long as I will be able to accomplish the use case described here I am happy with his way. > I think Roopa's patches are supplementary. Not all switchdev users > will be backed with a Linux Bridge. I therefore welcome your patches > very much. > > The overlap is in the ndo. I think both the API you propose and > Roopa's bridge code should use the same NDO. >> I do not have an example right now of a vendor specific attribute but I was just saying that might happen (i.e. someone will have a feature not implemented by others?). > That's fine. Once we have them we can consider adding vendor specific > extensions.
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |