On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 02:17:42PM +0200, Ilya Maximets wrote: > On 10/19/22 10:12, Simon Horman wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 14, 2022 at 10:40:30AM -0400, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote: > >> On Fri, Oct 14, 2022 at 9:00 AM Ilya Maximets <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >> > >> [..] > >>>> I thought it was pipe but maybe it is OK(in my opinion that is a bad code > >>>> for just "count"). We have some (at least NIC) hardware folks on the > >>>> list. > >>> > >>> IIRC, 'OK' action will stop the processing for the packet, so it can > >>> only be used as a last action in the list. But we need to count packets > >>> as a very first action in the list. So, that doesn't help. > >>> > >> > >> That's why i said it is a bad code - but i believe it's what some of > >> the hardware > >> people are doing. Note: it's only bad if you have more actions after > >> because > >> it aborts the processing pipeline. > >> > >>>> Note: we could create an alias to PIPE and call it COUNT if it helps. > >>> > >>> Will that help with offloading of that action? Why the PIPE is not > >>> offloadable in the first place and will COUNT be offloadable? > >> > >> Offloadable is just a semantic choice in this case. If someone is > >> using OK to count today - they could should be able to use PIPE > >> instead (their driver needs to do some transformation of course). > > > > FWIIW, yes, that is my thinking too. > > I don't know that code well, but I thought that tcf_gact_offload_act_setup() > is a generic function. And since it explicitly forbids offload of PIPE > action, no drivers can actually offload it even if they want to.
Sure, but I would expect that can be changed. > So it's not really a driver's choice in the current kernel code. Or am I > missing something? > > Best regards, Ilya Maximets. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
