On 1/20/25 16:13, Eelco Chaudron wrote: > > > On 20 Jan 2025, at 14:50, Roi Dayan wrote: > >> On 20/01/2025 14:57, Eelco Chaudron wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 15 Jan 2025, at 10:18, Roi Dayan via dev wrote: >>> >>>> Use this instead of directly using dpif_is_netdev() from dpif-netdev. >>>> Return true in dpif-netdev. >>> >>> Not sure if we need an API for this, or maybe I should say, what is the >>> definition >>> of userspace? If this means anything but the kernel, we could probably use >>> !dpif_is_netlink(). >>> >>> But I guess, the better question would be, what would we use this call for? >>> If it’s similar >>> to the existing use cases, we are probably better off by adding a features >>> API to dpif. >>> >>> Thoughts? >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Eelco >> >> >> Hi, >> >> The meaning of dpif is a userspace means it needs to handle tunneling and >> other stuff that >> kernel dpif doesn't need as the kernel does it for it. >> So while !dpif_is_netlink() is even more correct and better than current >> dpif_is_netdev() >> there was also a point here that dpif.c is not familiar with a specific dpif >> and not accessing >> a specific dpif function. > > So, this means a lot of potential stuff, so to me a general > dpif_is_userspace() does not make sense. > >> I think introducing a features API to dpif could be an overkill at this >> point. >> So if future dpifs might need something specific other than handled by >> kernel or not I think >> this can be done at a later time. > > It might look like an overkill right now, but the current use cases might > warrant one already. > Or are you suggesting to use/introduce !dpif_is_netlink() instead for now? > > > Ilya and other maintainers have any preferences or thoughts on this.
In general, using either dpif_is_netlink or dpif_is_netdev outside of dpif-netlink and dpif-netdev respectively is icky. And I agree that even today the number of uses of these functions outside their modules justifies doing the feature discovery properly. Majority of the cases here in dpif.c are caused by the fact that dpif-netdev doesn't validate actions, so it's not possible to probe them. It may be better to introduce some form of action validation in case of probing instead, so the features can be discovered normally. Best regards, Ilya Maximets. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list d...@openvswitch.org https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
