On 11/26/14 at 06:36am, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:

On 11/25/14 23:18, Scott Feldman wrote:

quoted

On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 5:33 PM, Jamal Hadi Salim [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

You have a pointer to the kernel driver for that HW?

I wasnt sure if that was a passive aggressive move there to
question what i am claiming?(Only Canadians are allowed to be
passive aggressive Scott). To answer your question, no
code currently littered with vendor SDK unfortunately (as you
would know!).
But hopefully if we get these changes in correctly it would
not be hard to show the driver working fully in the kernel.
There are definetely a few other pieces of hardware that are
making me come back here and invest time and effort in these
long discussions.

quoted

Can you show how
you're using Linux tc netlink msg in kernel to program HW?  I'd like
to see the in-kernel API.

Lets do the L2/port thing first. But yes, I am using Linux tc in
kernel.

Jamal,

What is irriating in this context is that you are pushing back on
Jiri and others while referring to properitary and closed code which
you are unwilling or unable to share. I don't see this as being
passive aggressive, everybody is treated the same way in this regard.

It is exactly the point of this API and related discussions to
decouple the control plane (tc) from any vendor specifics while
allowing them to innovate, compete, and solve different use cases.

I think it's absolutely the right thing to write the API against
code that is public, which in this case is rocker and the existing
in-kernel NIC drivers.