lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Jan]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC net-next Patch 0/3] net: bridge: mrp: Add support for Media Redundancy Protocol(MRP)
On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 10:02:06 +0100
Horatiu Vultur <horatiu.vultur@microchip.com> wrote:

> >
> > Can this be implemented in userspace?
>
> The reason for putting this in kernal space is to HW offload this in
> switchdev/dsa driver. The switches which typically supports this are
> small and don't have a lot of CPU power and the bandwidth between the
> CPU and switch core is typically limited(at least this is the case with
> the switches that we are working). Therefor we need to use HW offload
> components which can inject the frames at the needed frequency and other
> components which can terminate the expected frames and just raise and
> interrupt if the test frames are not received as expected(and a few
> other HW features).
>
> To put this in user-space we see two options:
> 1. We need to define a netlink interface which allows a user-space
> control application to ask the kernel to ask the switchdev driver to
> setup the frame-injector or frame-terminator. In theory this would be
> possible, and we have considered it, but we think that this interface
> will be too specific for our HW and will need to be changed every time
> we want to add support for a new SoC. By focusing the user-space
> interfaces on the protocol requirement, we feel more confident that we
> have an interface which we can continue to be backwards compatible with,
> and also support future/other chips with what ever facilities (if any)
> they have to HW offload.
>
> 2. Do a UIO driver and keep protocol and driver in user-space. We do not
> really like this approach for many reasons: it pretty much prevents us from
> collaborating with the community to solve this and it will be really hard
> to have the switchdev driver controlling part of the chip and a
> user-space driver controlling other parts.
>
> >
> > Putting STP in the kernel was a mistake (even original author says so).
> > Adding more control protocols in kernel is a security and stability risk.

The principal in networking is to separate control and data plane.
This is widely adopted in many areas: OVS, routing, etc.

There is an existing devlink interface for device control, it would
make sense to extend it to allow for more control of frame inject etc.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-01-10 16:37    [W:0.053 / U:52.308 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site