On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 10:55:05PM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote: > On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 10:23:01PM +0200, Iwan R Timmer wrote: > > Add support for configuring port mirroring through the cls_matchall > > classifier. We do a full ingress and/or egress capture towards the > > capture port, configured with set_egress_port. > > Hi Iwan > > This looks good as far as it goes. > > Have you tried adding/deleting multiple port mirrors? Do we need to > limit how many are added. A quick look at the datasheet, you can > define one egress mirror port and one ingress mirror port. I think you > can have multiple ports mirroring ingress to that one ingress mirror > port. And you can have multiple port mirroring egress to the one > egress mirror port. We should add code to check this, and return > -EBUSY if the existing configuration prevents a new mirror being > configured. > > Thanks > Andrew
Hi Andrew, I only own a simple 5 ports switch (88E6176) which has no problem of mirroring the other ports to a single port. Except for a bandwith shortage ofcourse. While I thought I checked adding and removing ports, I seemed to forgot to check removing ingress traffic as it will now disable mirroring egress traffic. Searching for how I can distinct ingress from egress mirroring in port_mirror_del, I saw there is a variable in the mirror struct called ingress. Which seems strange, because why is it a seperate argument to the port_mirror_add function? Origally I planned to be able to set the egress and ingress mirror seperatly. But in my laziness when I saw there already was a function to configure the destination port this functionality was lost. Because the other drivers which implemented the port_mirror_add (b53 and ksz9477) also lacks additional checks to prevent new mirror filters from breaking previous ones I assumed they were not necessary. At least I will soon sent a new version with at least the issue of removing mirror ingress traffic fixed and the ability to define a seperate ingress and egress port. Regards, Iwan
