[lkml]   [2020]   [Jan]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH RFC net-next 05/19] net: dsa: tag_ar9331: add GRO callbacks
On 1/13/20 2:28 AM, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 at 11:46, Alexander Lobakin <> wrote:
>> Vladimir Oltean wrote 13.01.2020 12:42:
>>> Hi Alexander,
>>> On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 at 11:22, Alexander Lobakin <>
>>> 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.

 \ /
  Last update: 2020-01-14 22:56    [W:0.070 / U:24.668 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site