On Thu, 02 Aug 2018 11:29:12 +0300, Petr Machata wrote: > David Miller <da...@davemloft.net> writes: > > > From: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicin...@netronome.com> > > Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2018 17:00:47 -0700 > > > >> On Wed, 1 Aug 2018 14:52:45 -0700, Saeed Mahameed wrote: > >>> - According to the discussion outcome, we are keeping the congestion > >>> control > >>> setting as mlx5 device specific for the current HW generation. > >> > >> I still see queuing and marking based on queue level. You want to add > >> a Qdisc that will mirror your HW's behaviour to offload, if you really > >> believe this is not a subset of RED, why not... But devlink params? > > > > I totally agree, devlink seems like absolutely to wrong level and set > > of interfaces to be doing this stuff. > > > > I will not pull these changes in and I probably should have not > > accepted the DCB changes from the other day and they were sneakily > > leading up to this crap. > > Are you talking about the recent additions of DCB helpers > dcb_ieee_getapp_prio_dscp_mask_map() etc.? > > If yes, I can assure there were no sneaky intentions at all. I'm at a > loss to understand the relation to mlx5 team's decision to use devlink > for congestion control configuration. > > Could you please clarify your remark?
Oh, I think David meant the patches I was objecting to a while ago, which were doing buffer configuration via the DCB API.
