On Fri, May 06, 2022 at 12:24:37PM +0000, Ferenc Fejes wrote: > Hi Vladimir! > > On 2022. 05. 06. 14:01, Vladimir Oltean wrote: > > Hi Ferenc, > > > > On Fri, May 06, 2022 at 07:49:40AM +0000, Ferenc Fejes wrote: > > This is correct. I have been testing only with the offloaded tc-gate > > action so I did not notice that the software does not act upon the ipv. > > Your proposal sounds straightforward enough. Care to send a bug fix patch? > > Unfortunately I cant, our company policy does not allow direct > open-source contributions :-( > > However I would be more than happy if you can fix it. That's too bad. I have a patch which I am still testing, but you've managed to captivate my attention for saying that you are testing 802.1Qch with a software implementation of tc-gate. Do you have a use case for this? What cycle times are you targeting? How are you ensuring that you are deterministically meeting the deadlines? Do you also have a software tc-taprio on the egress device or is that at least offloaded? I'm asking these questions because the peristaltic shaper is primarily intended to be used on hardware switches. The patch I'm preparing includes changes to struct sk_buff. I just want to know how well I'll be able to sell these changes to maintainers strongly opposing the growth of this structure for an exceedingly small niche :)
