On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 03:07:23PM -0800, John Fastabend wrote: > [...] > > >> > >>> +static void u32_replace_hw_hnode(struct tcf_proto *tp, struct > >>> tc_u_hnode *h) > >>> +{ > >>> + struct net_device *dev = tp->q->dev_queue->dev; > >>> + struct tc_cls_u32_offload u32_offload = {0}; > >>> + struct tc_to_netdev offload; > >>> + > >>> + offload.type = TC_SETUP_CLSU32; > >>> + offload.cls_u32 = &u32_offload; > >>> + > >>> + if (dev->netdev_ops->ndo_setup_tc) { > >>> + offload.cls_u32->command = TC_CLSU32_NEW_HNODE; > >> > >> TC_CLSU32_REPLACE_HNODE? > >> > > > > Yep I made this change and will send out v4. > > > > [...] > > > >> > > Actually thinking about this a bit more I wrote this thinking > that there existed some hardware that actually cared if it was > a new rule or an existing rule. For me it doesn't matter I do > the same thing in the new/replace cases I just write into the > slot on the hardware table and if it happens to have something > in it well its overwritten e.g. "replaced". This works because > the cls_u32 layer protects us from doing something unexpected. > > I'm wondering (mostly asking the mlx folks) is there hardware > out there that cares to make this distinction between new and > replace? Otherwise I can just drop new and always use replace. > Or vice versa which is the case in its current form. I don't see a need for such a distinction in mlx hardware.
Thanks, Amir. > > Thanks, > John >