> On Mon, 19 Dec 2022 16:41:31 +0100 Lorenzo Bianconi wrote: > > +===================== > > +Netdev XDP features > > +===================== > > + > > + * XDP FEATURES FLAGS > > + > > +Following netdev xdp features flags can be retrieved over route netlink > > +interface (compact form) - the same way as netdev feature flags. > > How likely is it that I'll be able to convince you that cramming more > stuff in rtnl is a bad idea? I can convert this for you to a YAML- > -compatible genetlink family for you in a jiffy, just say yes :S > > rtnl is hard to parse, and already overloaded with random stuff. > And the messages are enormous. Hi Jakub, I am fine to use YAML for this, but I will let Marek comment since he is the original author of this patch. > > > +These features flags are read only and cannot be change at runtime. > > + > > +* XDP_ABORTED > > + > > +This feature informs if netdev supports xdp aborted action. > > + > > +* XDP_DROP > > + > > +This feature informs if netdev supports xdp drop action. > > + > > +* XDP_PASS > > + > > +This feature informs if netdev supports xdp pass action. > > + > > +* XDP_TX > > + > > +This feature informs if netdev supports xdp tx action. > > + > > +* XDP_REDIRECT > > + > > +This feature informs if netdev supports xdp redirect action. > > +It assumes the all beforehand mentioned flags are enabled. > > + > > +* XDP_SOCK_ZEROCOPY > > + > > +This feature informs if netdev driver supports xdp zero copy. > > +It assumes the all beforehand mentioned flags are enabled. > > Why is this "assumption" worth documenting? I guess we can remove it. @Marek: any comment? > > > +* XDP_HW_OFFLOAD > > + > > +This feature informs if netdev driver supports xdp hw oflloading. > > + > > +* XDP_TX_LOCK > > + > > +This feature informs if netdev ndo_xdp_xmit function requires locking. > > Why is it relevant to the user? Probably not, I kept it since it was in Marek's original patch. @Marek: any comment? > > > +* XDP_REDIRECT_TARGET > > + > > +This feature informs if netdev implements ndo_xdp_xmit callback. > > Does it make sense to rename XDP_REDIRECT -> XDP_REDIRECT_SOURCE then? yes, naming is always hard :) > > > +* XDP_FRAG_RX > > + > > +This feature informs if netdev implements non-linear xdp buff support in > > +the driver napi callback. > > Who's the target audience? Maybe FRAG is not the best name? > Scatter-gather or multi-buf may be more widely understood. ack, fine. I will rename it in the formal series. Regards, Lorenzo > > > +* XDP_FRAG_TARGET > > + > > +This feature informs if netdev implements non-linear xdp buff support in > > +ndo_xdp_xmit callback. XDP_FRAG_TARGET requires XDP_REDIRECT_TARGET is properly > > +supported. >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
