Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Fri, 10 Jan 2020 22:03:37 +0200
In-Reply-To: <20200110.112736.1849382588448237535.davem@davemloft.net>
References: <20200109150640.532-1-horatiu.vultur@microchip.com> <6f1936e9-97e5-9502-f062-f2925c9652c9@cumulusnetworks.com> <20200110.112736.1849382588448237535.davem@davemloft.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
 charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [RFC net-next Patch 0/3] net: bridge: mrp: Add support for Media Redundancy Protocol(MRP)
To:     David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
CC:     horatiu.vultur@microchip.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org,
        roopa@cumulusnetworks.com, jakub.kicinski@netronome.com,
        vivien.didelot@gmail.com, andrew@lunn.ch,
        jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com, olteanv@gmail.com,
        anirudh.venkataramanan@intel.com, dsahern@gmail.com,
        jiri@mellanox.com, UNGLinuxDriver@microchip.com
From:   nikolay@cumulusnetworks.com
Message-ID: <3CD4F75F-C462-4CF2-B31A-C2E023D3F065@cumulusnetworks.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 10 January 2020 21:27:36 EET, David Miller <davem@davemloft=2Enet> wrote=
:
>From: Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@cumulusnetworks=2Ecom>
>Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2020 16:13:36 +0200
>
>> I agree with Stephen here, IMO you have to take note of how STP has
>progressed
>> and that bringing it in the kernel was a mistake, these days mstpd
>has an active
>> community and much better support which is being extended=2E This looks
>best implemented
>> in user-space in my opinion with minimal kernel changes to support
>it=2E You could simply
>> open a packet socket with a filter and work through that, you don't
>need new netlink
>> sockets=2E I'm not familiar with the protocol so can't really be the
>judge of that, if
>> you present a good argument for needing a new netlink socket for
>these packets - then
>> sure, ok=2E
>
>With a userland implementation, what approach do you suggest for
>DSA/switchdev offload
>of this stuff?

Good question, there was no mention of that initially, or I missed it at l=
east=2E=20
There aren't many details about what/how will be offloaded right now=2E
We need more information about what will be offloaded and how it will fit=
=2E=20


l