On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 11:23:15AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 12:06:39 +0200, Or Gerlitz wrote: > > > Maybe having a side library that could take a ethtool/flower/nft flow > > > and return common IR representation of that flow would be less painful? > > > Drivers could then migrate at its own pace, for new functionality etc. > > > Was that discussed before? I may have lost track of this discussion... > > > > Currently all drivers are ported to use the IR on the tc/flower offload path > > > > End of the day, seems that Jiri and Jakub are good with this and I didn't > > hear > > any further rejections from other driver folks, so I guess my concerns > > were basically addressed by them. > > I think having the drivers call the IR translation could be a good > compromise instead of having flower always pass down converted flows. > > tc flower -> flower offload object -> setup_tc -> driver -> > -> flow_offload_from_flower() -> driver -> driver's common handling > > This patchset already does that for ethtool: > > ethtool -> ethtool flow -> ethtool_op -> driver -> > -> ethtool_rx_flow_rule_create() -> driver -> driver's common handling > > It feels like a bit of a waste to let the driver patches go, but > perhaps it's a good way to move forward?
I think Michal Kubecek mentioned that it would be good if, moving forward, core/ethtool.c calls ethtool_rx_flow_rule_create(), so this is: ethtool -> ethtool flow -> ethtool_rx_flow_rule_create() -> -> ethtool_op -> driver -> driver's common handling In that case, ethtool would match what flower is doing. We can probably offer the flow_rule representation as parameter via ethtool_op indirection, so there is a single ethtool_rx_flow_rule_create() call. Still, this new infrastructure is used by two ethtool drivers, so probably it is too early for this consolidation work.
