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:   Tue, 18 Feb 2020 08:55:22 -0800
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
To:     "Allan W. Nielsen" <allan.nielsen@microchip.com>
Cc:     Horatiu Vultur <horatiu.vultur@microchip.com>,
        <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        <bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org>, <jiri@resnulli.us>,
        <ivecera@redhat.com>, <davem@davemloft.net>,
        <roopa@cumulusnetworks.com>, <nikolay@cumulusnetworks.com>,
        <anirudh.venkataramanan@intel.com>, <olteanv@gmail.com>,
        <andrew@lunn.ch>, <jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com>,
        <UNGLinuxDriver@microchip.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC net-next v3 00/10]  net: bridge: mrp: Add support for
 Media Redundancy Protocol (MRP)
Message-ID: <20200218085522.630e4778@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.DHCP.thefacebook.com>
In-Reply-To: <20200218121811.xo3o6zzrhl5p3j2s@lx-anielsen.microsemi.net>
References: <20200124161828.12206-1-horatiu.vultur@microchip.com>
        <20200218121811.xo3o6zzrhl5p3j2s@lx-anielsen.microsemi.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 13:18:11 +0100 Allan W. Nielsen wrote:
> But we should try make sure this also works in a backwards compatible
> way with future MRP aware HW, and with existing (and future) SwitchDev
> offloaded HW. At the very least we want to make this run on Ocelot, HW
> offload the MRC role, but do the MRM in SW (as the HW is not capable of
> this).
> 
> If we use the kernel to abstract the MRP forwarding (not the entire
> protocol like we did in v1/v2, not just the HW like we did in v3) then
> we will have more flxibility to support other HW with a different set of
> offload facilities, we can most likely achieve better performance, and
> it would be a cleaner design.
> 
> This will mean, that if user-space ask for MRP frame to be generated,
> the kernel should make sure it will happen. The kernel can try to
> offload this via the switchdev API, or it can do it in kernel-space.
> 
> Again, it will mean putting back some code into kernel space, but I
> think it is worth it.

FWIW having the guarantee that the kernel can always perform requested
service/operation (either thru offload or in SW in kernel space) seems
appealing and in line what we've been doing for other offloads. 

IOW it'd be nice to have a kernel space software fallback for the
offloaded operations.