On Fri, 24 May 2019 12:18:32 +0200, Björn Töpel wrote: > Maxim, this doesn't address the uapi concern we had on your v2. > Please refer to Magnus' comment here [1]. > > Please educate me why you cannot publish AF_XDP without the uapi change? > It's an extension, right? If so, then existing XDP/AF_XDP program can > use Mellanox ZC without your addition? It's great that Mellanox has a ZC > capable driver, but the uapi change is a NAK. > > To reiterate; We'd like to get the queue setup/steering for AF_XDP > correct. I, and Magnus, dislike this approach. It requires a more > complicated XDP program, and is hard for regular users to understand. +1
