Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Fri, 29 Jan 2021 19:01:14 -0800
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
To:     <rasmus.villemoes@prevas.dk>, <andrew@lunn.ch>,
        Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com>
Cc:     Horatiu Vultur <horatiu.vultur@microchip.com>, <jiri@resnulli.us>,
        <ivecera@redhat.com>, <davem@davemloft.net>, <roopa@nvidia.com>,
        <nikolay@nvidia.com>, <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 0/4] bridge: mrp: Extend br_mrp_switchdev_*
Message-ID: <20210129190114.3f5b6b44@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
In-Reply-To: <20210127205241.2864728-1-horatiu.vultur@microchip.com>
References: <20210127205241.2864728-1-horatiu.vultur@microchip.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 27 Jan 2021 21:52:37 +0100 Horatiu Vultur wrote:
> This patch series extends MRP switchdev to allow the SW to have a better
> understanding if the HW can implement the MRP functionality or it needs
> to help the HW to run it. There are 3 cases:
> - when HW can't implement at all the functionality.
> - when HW can implement a part of the functionality but needs the SW
>   implement the rest. For example if it can't detect when it stops
>   receiving MRP Test frames but it can copy the MRP frames to CPU to
>   allow the SW to determine this.  Another example is generating the MRP
>   Test frames. If HW can't do that then the SW is used as backup.
> - when HW can implement completely the functionality.
> 
> So, initially the SW tries to offload the entire functionality in HW, if
> that fails it tries offload parts of the functionality in HW and use the
> SW as helper and if also this fails then MRP can't run on this HW.
> 
> v2:
>  - fix typos in comments and in commit messages
>  - remove some of the comments
>  - move repeated code in helper function
>  - fix issue when deleting a node when sw_backup was true

Folks who were involved in previous MRP conversations - does this look
good to you? Anyone planning to test?