The 01/14/2020 14:20, Andrew Lunn wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 09:08:56AM +0100, Horatiu Vultur wrote: > > The 01/14/2020 00:30, Andrew Lunn wrote: > > > > > > Hi Horatiu > > > > > > It has been said a few times what the basic state machine should be in > > > user space. A pure software solution can use raw sockets to send and > > > receive MRP_Test test frames. When considering hardware acceleration, > > > the switchdev API you have proposed here seems quite simple. It should > > > not be too hard to map it to a set of netlink messages from userspace. > > > > Yes and we will try to go with this approach, to have a user space > > application that contains the state machines and then in the kernel to > > extend the netlink messages to map to the switchdev API. > > So we will create a new RFC once we will have the user space and the > > definition of the netlink messages. > > Cool. > > Before you get too far, we might want to discuss exactly how you pass > these netlink messages. Do we want to make this part of the new > ethtool Netlink implementation? Part of devlink? Extend the current > bridge netlink interface used by userspae RSTP daemons? A new generic > netlink socket? We are not yet 100% sure. We were thinking to choose between extending the bridge netlink interface or adding a new netlink socket. I was leaning to create a new netlink socket, because I think that would be clearer and easier to understand. But I don't have much experience with this, so in both cases I need to sit down and actually try to implement it to see exactly. > > Extending the bridge netlink interface might seem the most logical. > The argument against it, is that the kernel bridge code probably does > not need to know anything about this offloading. But it does allow you > to make use of the switchdev API, so we have a uniform API between the > network stack and drivers implementing offloading. > > Andrew -- /Horatiu
