On 29/10/2023 14:42, Ahmed Zaki wrote: > > > On 2023-10-29 06:25, Gal Pressman wrote: >> On 21/10/2023 3:00, Ahmed Zaki wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 2023-10-20 17:49, Jakub Kicinski wrote: >>>> On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 17:14:11 -0600 Ahmed Zaki wrote: >>>>> I replied to that here: >>>>> >>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/afb4a06f-cfba-47ba-adb3-09bea7cb5f00@xxxxxxxxx/ >>>>> >>>>> I am kind of confused now so please bear with me. ethtool either sends >>>>> "ethtool_rxfh" or "ethtool_rxnfc". AFAIK "ethtool_rxfh" is the >>>>> interface >>>>> for "ethtool -X" which is used to set the RSS algorithm. But we >>>>> kind of >>>>> agreed to go with "ethtool -U|-N" for symmetric-xor, and that uses >>>>> "ethtool_rxnfc" (as implemented in this series). >>>> >>>> I have no strong preference. Sounds like Alex prefers to keep it closer >>>> to algo, which is "ethtool_rxfh". >>>> >>>>> Do you mean use "ethtool_rxfh" instead of "ethtool_rxnfc"? how would >>>>> that work on the ethtool user interface? >>>> >>>> I don't know what you're asking of us. If you find the code to >>>> confusing >>>> maybe someone at Intel can help you :| >>> >>> The code is straightforward. I am confused by the requirements: don't >>> add a new algorithm but use "ethtool_rxfh". >>> >>> I'll see if I can get more help, may be I am missing something. >>> >> >> What was the decision here? >> Is this going to be exposed through ethtool -N or -X? > > I am working on a new version that uses "ethtool_rxfh" to set the > symmetric-xor. The user will set per-device via: > > ethtool -X eth0 hfunc toeplitz symmetric-xor > > then specify the per-flow type RSS fields as usual: > > ethtool -N|-U eth0 rx-flow-hash <flow_type> s|d|f|n > > The downside is that all flow-types will have to be either symmetric or > asymmetric. Why are we making the interface less flexible than it can be with -N?
