[ovs-dev] [patch net-next v2 8/9] switchdev: introduce Netlink API

[Roopa Prabhu]

On 9/20/14, 1:09 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 05:41:16AM CEST, roopa at cumulusnetworks.com wrote:
>> On 9/19/14, 8:49 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>>> Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 05:25:48PM CEST, jhs at mojatatu.com wrote:
>>>> On 09/19/14 09:49, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>>>>> This patch exposes switchdev API using generic Netlink.
>>>>> Example userspace utility is here:
>>>>> https://github.com/jpirko/switchdev
>>>>>
>>>> Is this just a temporary test tool? Otherwise i dont see reason
>>>> for its existence (or the API that it feeds on).
>>> Please read the conversation I had with Pravin and Jesse in v1 thread.
>>> Long story short they like to have the api separated from ovs datapath
>>> so ovs daemon can use it to directly communicate with driver. Also John
>>> Fastabend requested a way to work with driver flows without using ovs ->
>>> that was the original reason I created switchdev genl api.
>>>
>>> Regarding the "sw" tool, yes it is for testing purposes now. ovs daemon
>>> will use directly switchdev genl api.
>>>
>>> I hope I cleared this out.
>> We already have all the needed rtnetlink kernel api and userspace tools
>> around it to support all
>> switching asic features. ie, the rtnetlink api is the switchdev api. We can
>> do l2, l3, acl's with it.
>> Its unclear to me why we need another new netlink api. Which will mean none
>> of the existing tools to
>> create bridges etc will work on a switchdev.
> No one is proposing such API. Note that what I'm trying to solve in my
> patchset is FLOW world. There is only one API there, ovs genl. But the
> usage of that for hw offload purposes was nacked by ovs maintainer. Plus
> couple of people wanted to run the offloading independently on ovs
> instance. Therefore I introduced the switchdev genl, which takes care of
> that. No plan to extend it for other things you mentioned, just flows.
ok, That was not clear to me. Introducing a new genl api and calling it the
switchd dev api can result it non-flow creep into it in the future.
>
>
>> Which seems like going in the direction exactly opposite to what we had
>> discussed earlier.
> Nope. The previous discussion ignored flows.
>> If a non-ovs flow interface is needed from userspace, we can extend the
>> existing interface to include flows.
> How? You mean to extend rtnetlink? What advantage it would bring
> comparing to separate genl iface?
yes. Advantage would be that we dont have yet another parallel switchdev 
netlink api.


>> I don't understand why we should replace the existing rtnetlink switchdev api
>> to accommodate flows.
> Sorry, I do not undertand what "existing rtnetlink switchdev api" you
> have on mind. Would you care to explain?

I am taking about existing rtnetlink api that bridge, ip link uses to 
talk l2 and l3 to the kernel.
RTM_NEWROUTE etc.