On Tue, Feb 2, 2021 at 8:34 PM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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). I am a bit confused now. Did you mean validation tests of those XDP flags, which I am working on or some other validation tests? What should these tests verify? Can you please elaborate more on the topic, please - just a few sentences how are you see it?
