Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH RFC net-next 05/19] net: dsa: tag_ar9331: add GRO callbacks | From | Florian Fainelli <> | Date | Tue, 14 Jan 2020 13:56:11 -0800 |
| |
On 1/13/20 2:28 AM, Vladimir Oltean wrote: > On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 at 11:46, Alexander Lobakin <alobakin@dlink.ru> wrote: >> >> Vladimir Oltean wrote 13.01.2020 12:42: >>> Hi Alexander, >>> >>> On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 at 11:22, Alexander Lobakin <alobakin@dlink.ru> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> CPU ports can't be bridged anyway >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> ᚷ ᛖ ᚢ ᚦ ᚠ ᚱ >>> >>> The fact that CPU ports can't be bridged is already not ideal. >>> One can have a DSA switch with cascaded switches on each port, so it >>> acts like N DSA masters (not as DSA links, since the taggers are >>> incompatible), with each switch forming its own tree. It is desirable >>> that the ports of the DSA switch on top are bridged, so that >>> forwarding between cascaded switches does not pass through the CPU. >> >> Oh, I see. But currently DSA infra forbids the adding DSA masters to >> bridges IIRC. Can't name it good or bad decision, but was introduced >> to prevent accidental packet flow breaking on DSA setups. >> > > I just wanted to point out that some people are going to be looking at > ways by which the ETH_P_XDSA handler can be made to play nice with the > master's rx_handler, and that it would be nice to at least not make > the limitation worse than it is by converting everything to > rx_handlers (which "currently" can't be stacked, from the comments in > netdevice.h).
I am not sure this would change the situation much, today we cannot have anything but switch tags travel on the DSA master network device, whether we accomplish the RX tap through a special skb->protocol value or via rx_handler, it probably does not functionally matter, but it could change the performance. -- Florian
| |