# Re: \[PATCH v4 04/10\] flow\_offload: allow user to offload tc action to net device

- From: Jamal Hadi Salim \<jhs@mojatatu.com\>
- Date: 2021-11-24 11:10:29 
- List: netdev
- Page: https://ratatoskr.run/netdev/2021/11/11216919
- Thread: https://ratatoskr.run/netdev/2021/11/11216438/t.md

```text
On 2021-11-23 21:11, Baowen Zheng wrote:
> On November 24, 2021 3:04 AM, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:

[..]

>> The simplest approach seems to be adding a field in ops struct and call it
>> hw_id (we already have id which represents the s/w side).
>> All your code in flow_action_init() then becomes something like:
>>
>>          if (!fl_action)
>>                  return -EINVAL;
>>
>>          fl_action->extack = extack;
>>          fl_action->command = cmd;
>>          fl_action->index = act->tcfa_index;
>>
>>
>>          fl_action->id = act->hwid;
>>
>> And modules continue to work. Did i miss something?
>>
> Hi Jamal, for your suggestion, I think it will work for most of the case. But there maybe some kind of actions
> that will be assigned different hw_id in different case, such as the gact, we need to think about this case.
> So I will prefer to add a callback in action ops struct to implement the flow_action_init function for the new added
> Standalone action.
> WDYT?
>

Yes, the callback makes sense. I imagine this would be needed also
if you offload mirred (selecting whether to mirror or redirect).

>>> Do you think it is proper to include this implement in our patch series or we
>> can delivery a new patch for this?
>>
>> Unless I am missing something basic, I dont see this as hard to do as explained
>> above in this patch series.
> I did not mean it is difficult.
> Since as my understanding, we will have the same problem in function of tc_setup_flow_action to
> Setup the actions for a to be offloaded flower. So my proposal is to add a callback in action ops to implement
> Both the function of flow_act_init and tc_setup_flow_action with a flag(maybe bind?) as a distinguish.
> What is your opinion?


See above. I agree with your suggestion.

cheers,
jamal
```