On 29/10/2023 14:42, Ahmed Zaki wrote:

On 2023-10-29 06:25, Gal Pressman wrote:

quoted

On 21/10/2023 3:00, Ahmed Zaki wrote:

quoted

On 2023-10-20 17:49, Jakub Kicinski wrote:

quoted

On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 17:14:11 -0600 Ahmed Zaki wrote:

quoted

I replied to that here:

https://lore.kernel.org/all/afb4a06f-cfba-47ba-adb3-09bea7cb5f00@intel.com/ (local)

I am kind of confused now so please bear with me. ethtool either sends
"ethtool_rxfh" or "ethtool_rxnfc". AFAIK "ethtool_rxfh" is the
interface
for "ethtool -X" which is used to set the RSS algorithm. But we
kind of
agreed to go with "ethtool -U|-N" for symmetric-xor, and that uses
"ethtool_rxnfc" (as implemented in this series).

I have no strong preference. Sounds like Alex prefers to keep it closer
to algo, which is "ethtool_rxfh".

quoted

Do you mean use "ethtool_rxfh" instead of "ethtool_rxnfc"? how would
that work on the ethtool user interface?

I don't know what you're asking of us. If you find the code to
confusing
maybe someone at Intel can help you :|

The code is straightforward. I am confused by the requirements: don't
add a new algorithm but use "ethtool_rxfh".

I'll see if I can get more help, may be I am missing something.

What was the decision here?
Is this going to be exposed through ethtool -N or -X?

I am working on a new version that uses "ethtool_rxfh" to set the
symmetric-xor. The user will set per-device via:

ethtool -X eth0 hfunc toeplitz symmetric-xor

then specify the per-flow type RSS fields as usual:

ethtool -N|-U eth0 rx-flow-hash <flow_type> s|d|f|n

The downside is that all flow-types will have to be either symmetric or
asymmetric.

Why are we making the interface less flexible than it can be with -N?