On Tue, 02 Feb 2021 13:05:34 +0100 Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote: > Marek Majtyka <alardam@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > 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. > > Awesome! And sorry for not replying straight away - I hate it when I > send out something myself and receive no replies, so I suppose I should > get better at not doing that myself :) > > As for the inclusion of the XDP_BASE / XDP_LIMITED_BASE sets (which I > just realised I didn't reply to), I am fine with defining XDP_BASE as a > shortcut for TX/ABORTED/PASS/DROP, but think we should skip > XDP_LIMITED_BASE and instead require all new drivers to implement the > full XDP_BASE set straight away. As long as we're talking about > features *implemented* by the driver, at least; i.e., it should still be > possible to *deactivate* XDP_TX if you don't want to use the HW > resources, but I don't think there's much benefit from defining the > LIMITED_BASE set as a shortcut for this mode... I still have mixed feelings about these flags. The first step IMO should be adding validation tests. I bet^W pray every vendor has validation tests but since they are not unified we don't know what level of interoperability we're achieving in practice. That doesn't matter for trivial feature like base actions, but we'll inevitably move on to defining more advanced capabilities and the question of "what supporting X actually mean" will come up (3 years later, when we don't remember ourselves).
