From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.0 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, MENTIONS_GIT_HOSTING,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30B6DC07E95 for ; Sat, 10 Jul 2021 20:32:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1584761355 for ; Sat, 10 Jul 2021 20:32:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229715AbhGJUfR (ORCPT ); Sat, 10 Jul 2021 16:35:17 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:34140 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229515AbhGJUfQ (ORCPT ); Sat, 10 Jul 2021 16:35:16 -0400 Received: from mail-pf1-x429.google.com (mail-pf1-x429.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::429]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3C4DAC0613DD for ; Sat, 10 Jul 2021 13:32:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pf1-x429.google.com with SMTP id m83so4538236pfd.0 for ; Sat, 10 Jul 2021 13:32:31 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=networkplumber-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=sL61vUB/PehkKkCSa/Fn/0uL70Pu7mLqTzvYlVhHxq0=; b=yQoN3k13dbQ5sc1HDipeOiL7q+kwDagu+F/2JmHX79AbOYs+5hjnxVn0caMETbiA8Q nXRqQgNhVHu6nfu1YCYRO/YsnevorUMu9Nl0SJf4IJHN+WkT35KWfu736DHaJvQ2jnKq EiwXv1QmkEP9DpZyLe+FKl1TTpqfeqQvXyDAooWZbgbKPkZGoSR34+wIW5tbTOzBO8hC olWCXY8WcKvzXcmr1wKIP//JfI1p1tAADEnww7PQdFvLh1jXWEnrSIF2aF/fSqsnwbYx 1WvQ3/BsHwgZrexYb8ipNEvS0l72HnnpyZyIn51MXKtyqdzVtGg4+LsVud3EvrHBskU0 k5Ow== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=sL61vUB/PehkKkCSa/Fn/0uL70Pu7mLqTzvYlVhHxq0=; b=ubk8J8KauD07qEHCCiZadjzfvel7+ZT39PQcwyU5UgfWbxRJ6bslL5cPLfguYcKd9V mP56IKr3ANYiUTQ+NXWclPpLyO4X7lDsHJSQXTXaNkR6nJYWvwS/eC+Rq1gr3u9UtVHv aeDaqHiQ6mUoF+uA0Sfhi4rMTQznwr8unDtBgFZ5E+D9JfrwbhlGxD2skFGDK++cKIgN 8nUc+MTlkvPgZW2h5F3TsWcw58pRzIF1Ljd8yGTA4M5dWQ4e3yttJ4GLHz7q46Yql72H YiCA07ISwoPlZbqvb8/5m3EFEM9EZBZO9OnSFdO8Cta8tWNa2DQJ4lCyRX2Bj25lGZaj 2MEQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM53044AiqnXWUPtZ52M/1dLcr83v1KEt7tDtA5a5RlWfcJ3BUR4oo 7HfuihWKHVJ+34U9J64bVL4Hkg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxbnZad34gHtIG8Xclp9DZ7GprOe+4Rf4Xgg/2ZAMyY3YbFOAocNRXkgZc7ExJuPLP/GSJBxw== X-Received: by 2002:a62:2bc6:0:b029:2cc:242f:ab69 with SMTP id r189-20020a622bc60000b02902cc242fab69mr45153141pfr.16.1625949150002; Sat, 10 Jul 2021 13:32:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.local (204-195-33-123.wavecable.com. [204.195.33.123]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id z6sm2627697pjn.12.2021.07.10.13.32.29 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Sat, 10 Jul 2021 13:32:29 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2021 13:32:27 -0700 From: Stephen Hemminger To: Dave Taht Cc: Andrew Lunn , Jian Shen , "David S. Miller" , Jakub Kicinski , Linux Kernel Network Developers , linuxarm@openeuler.org Subject: Re: [RFC net-next] net: extend netdev features Message-ID: <20210710133227.348899f8@hermes.local> In-Reply-To: References: <1625910047-56840-1-git-send-email-shenjian15@huawei.com> <20210710081120.5570fb87@hermes.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 08:35:52 -0700 Dave Taht wrote: > On Sat, Jul 10, 2021 at 8:18 AM Andrew Lunn wrote: > > > > > Infrastructure changes must be done as part of the patch that > > > needs the new feature bit. It might be that your feature bit is > > > not accepted as part of the review cycle, or a better alternative > > > is proposed. > > > > Hi Stephan > > > > I agree with what you are saying, but i also think there is no way to > > avoid needing more feature bits. So even if the new feature bit itself > > is rejected, the code to allow it could be useful. > > I would rather passionately like to expand several old currently 16 > bit fields in tc and iptables to 32 bits, > and break the 1000 user limitation we have in things like this: > > https://github.com/rchac/LibreQoS Unfortunately, no one has stepped up to the heavy lifting of having a UAPI compatibility layer for this.