Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 bpf 1/5] net: ethtool: add xdp properties flag set

From: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2021 17:16:01 +0100

Marek Majtyka <[email-masked]> writes:

> I would like to thank you for your time, comments, nitpicking as well
> as encouraging.
>
> One thing needs clarification I think, that is, that those flags
> describe driver static feature sets - which are read-only. They have
> nothing in common with driver runtime configuration change yet.
> Runtime change of this state can be added but it needs a new variable
> and it can be done later on if someone needs it.
>
> Obviously, it is not possible to make everybody happy, especially with
> XDP_BASE flags set. To be honest, this XDP_BASE definition is a
> syntactic sugar for me and I can live without it. We can either remove
> it completely, from
> which IMO we all and other developers will suffer later on, or maybe
> we can agree on these two helper set of flags: XDP_BASE (TX, ABORTED,
> PASS, DROP) and XDP_LIMITED_BASE(ABORTED,PASS_DROP).
> What do you think?
>
> I am also going to add a new XDP_REDIRECT_TARGET flag and retrieving
> XDP flags over rtnelink interface.
>
> I also think that for completeness, ethtool implementation should be
> kept  together with rtnelink part in order to cover both ip and
> ethtool tools. Do I have your approval or disagreement? Please let me
> know.

Hi Marek

I just realised that it seems no one actually replied to your email. On
my part at least that was because I didn't have any objections, so I'm
hoping you didn't feel the lack of response was discouraging (and that
you're still working on a revision of this series)? :)

-Toke