Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932571AbbFBOrc (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Jun 2015 10:47:32 -0400 Received: from bh-25.webhostbox.net ([208.91.199.152]:50220 "EHLO bh-25.webhostbox.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756353AbbFBOrU (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Jun 2015 10:47:20 -0400 Message-ID: <556DC1F2.1070105@roeck-us.net> Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2015 07:47:14 -0700 From: Guenter Roeck User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrew Lunn CC: Scott Feldman , Vivien Didelot , Netdev , "David S. Miller" , Florian Fainelli , Jiri Pirko , Jerome Oufella , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , kernel@savoirfairelinux.com, Chris Healy Subject: Re: [RFC 3/9] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: add support for VTU ops References: <1433208470-25338-1-git-send-email-vivien.didelot@savoirfairelinux.com> <1433208470-25338-4-git-send-email-vivien.didelot@savoirfairelinux.com> <556D522E.90607@roeck-us.net> <556DB283.8080300@roeck-us.net> <20150602134252.GT22739@lunn.ch> In-Reply-To: <20150602134252.GT22739@lunn.ch> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Authenticated_sender: linux@roeck-us.net X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - bh-25.webhostbox.net X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - vger.kernel.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - roeck-us.net X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: bh-25.webhostbox.net: authenticated_id: linux@roeck-us.net X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1300 Lines: 32 On 06/02/2015 06:42 AM, Andrew Lunn wrote: >> Also, we already have cases where the switch is connected to the CPU with >> more than one Ethernet port. It is easy to imagine that the user of such >> a system might want to configure two bridge groups. > > Hi Guenter > > I think that is orthogonal. Having multiple CPU ports should really > only be seen as increased throughput with load sharing. It makes no > different to the basic user use cases. They can all be done with a > single CPU port, but with less bandwidth. > Hi Andrew, quite possibly, but for my part I usually try not to restrict use cases. Some people may feel uncomfortable with load sharing and rather use the separate cpu ports to connect to dedicated external ports on the switch. Sure, that may reduce overall throughput, but it would provide a cleaner separation of traffic and guarantee that each of the ports gets its full bandwidth and is not starved by the other. Yes, I am sure that is all configurable, but it adds more and more complexity for the user. Thanks, Guenter -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/