On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 3:44 AM Tonghao Zhang <xiangxia.m....@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 12:49 PM Or Gerlitz <gerlitz...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 4:26 AM Tonghao Zhang <xiangxia.m....@gmail.com> > > wrote:
> > > I review the reps of netronome nfp codes, nfp does't set the > > > NETIF_F_NETNS_LOCAL to netdev->features. > > > And I changed the OFED codes which used for our product environment, > > > and then send this patch to upstream. > > The real question here is if we can provide the required separation when > > vport rep netdevs are put into different name-spaces -- this needs deeper > > thinking. Technically you can do that with this one liner patch but we have > > to see if/what assumptions could be broken as of that. > Can we add a mode parm for allowing user to switch it off/on ? The kernel model for namespace means a completely new copy of the networking stack with new routing tables, new neighbour tables. everything. It also means netdevices in different namespaces can't communicate with each other. I tend to think that our FW/HW model doesn't support that and hence we can't do proper offloading of the SW model. I suggest you approach the current maintainers (Roi and Saeed) to see if they have different opinion. Or.
