Thanks Toke, In fact, I was waiting for a single confirmation, disagreement or comment. I have it now. As there are no more comments, I am getting down to work right away. Marek On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 5:16 PM Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Marek Majtyka <alardam@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > I would like to thank you for your time, comments, nitpicking as well > > as encouraging. > > > > One thing needs clarification I think, that is, that those flags > > describe driver static feature sets - which are read-only. They have > > nothing in common with driver runtime configuration change yet. > > Runtime change of this state can be added but it needs a new variable > > and it can be done later on if someone needs it. > > > > Obviously, it is not possible to make everybody happy, especially with > > XDP_BASE flags set. To be honest, this XDP_BASE definition is a > > syntactic sugar for me and I can live without it. We can either remove > > it completely, from > > which IMO we all and other developers will suffer later on, or maybe > > we can agree on these two helper set of flags: XDP_BASE (TX, ABORTED, > > PASS, DROP) and XDP_LIMITED_BASE(ABORTED,PASS_DROP). > > What do you think? > > > > I am also going to add a new XDP_REDIRECT_TARGET flag and retrieving > > XDP flags over rtnelink interface. > > > > I also think that for completeness, ethtool implementation should be > > kept together with rtnelink part in order to cover both ip and > > ethtool tools. Do I have your approval or disagreement? Please let me > > know. > > Hi Marek > > I just realised that it seems no one actually replied to your email. On > my part at least that was because I didn't have any objections, so I'm > hoping you didn't feel the lack of response was discouraging (and that > you're still working on a revision of this series)? :) > > -Toke >
