Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Mon, 17 Apr 2023 13:12:09 +0300
From:   Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@gmail.com>
To:     Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@pengutronix.de>
Cc:     "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
        Woojung Huh <woojung.huh@microchip.com>,
        Arun Ramadoss <arun.ramadoss@microchip.com>,
        kernel@pengutronix.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, UNGLinuxDriver@microchip.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v1 2/2] net: dsa: microchip: Add partial ACL
 support for ksz9477 switches
Message-ID: <20230417101209.m5fhc7njeeomljkf@skbuf>
References: <20230411172456.3003003-1-o.rempel@pengutronix.de>
 <20230411172456.3003003-1-o.rempel@pengutronix.de>
 <20230411172456.3003003-3-o.rempel@pengutronix.de>
 <20230411172456.3003003-3-o.rempel@pengutronix.de>
 <20230416165658.fuo7vwer7m7ulkg2@skbuf>
 <20230417045710.GB20350@pengutronix.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20230417045710.GB20350@pengutronix.de>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Apr 17, 2023 at 06:57:10AM +0200, Oleksij Rempel wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 07:24:55PM +0200, Oleksij Rempel wrote:
> > > The ACL also implements a count function, generating an interrupt
> > > instead of a forwarding action. It can be used as a watchdog timer or an
> > > event counter.
> > 
> > Is the interrupt handled here? I didn't see cls_flower_stats().
> 
> No, it is not implemented in this patch. It is generic description of things
> ACL should be able to do. Is it confusing? Should I remove it?

No, it's confusing that the ACL statistics are not reported even though
it's mentioned that it's possible...

> > Have you considered the "skbedit priority" action as opposed to hw_tc?
> 
> I had already thought of that, but since bridging is offloaded in the HW
> no skbs are involved, i thought it will be confusing. Since tc-flower seems to
> already support hw_tc remapping, I decided to use it. I hope it will not harm,
> to use it for now as mandatory option and make it optional later if other
> actions are added, including skbedit.

Well, skbedit is offloadable, so in that sense, its behavior is defined
even when no skbs are involved. OTOH, skbedit also has a software data
path (sets skb->priority), as opposed to hw_tc, which last time I checked,
did not.