[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250220145537.GY1615191@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2025 14:55:37 +0000
From: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>
To: Larysa Zaremba <larysa.zaremba@...el.com>
Cc: Tony Nguyen <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>,
intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org,
Przemek Kitszel <przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com>,
Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Michal Swiatkowski <michal.swiatkowski@...ux.intel.com>,
Mateusz Pacuszka <mateuszx.pacuszka@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH iwl-next v4 1/6] ice: fix check for existing switch rule
On Fri, Feb 14, 2025 at 09:50:35AM +0100, Larysa Zaremba wrote:
> From: Mateusz Pacuszka <mateuszx.pacuszka@...el.com>
>
> In case the rule already exists and another VSI wants to subscribe to it
> new VSI list is being created and both VSIs are moved to it.
> Currently, the check for already existing VSI with the same rule is done
> based on fdw_id.hw_vsi_id, which applies only to LOOKUP_RX flag.
> Change it to vsi_handle. This is software VSI ID, but it can be applied
> here, because vsi_map itself is also based on it.
>
> Additionally change return status in case the VSI already exists in the
> VSI map to "Already exists". Such case should be handled by the caller.
FWIIW, I might have made this two patches, but I don't feel
particularly strongly about it.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mateusz Pacuszka <mateuszx.pacuszka@...el.com>
> Reviewed-by: Przemek Kitszel <przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com>
> Reviewed-by: Michal Swiatkowski <michal.swiatkowski@...ux.intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Larysa Zaremba <larysa.zaremba@...el.com>
Reviewed-by: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists