[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aCLh-9EchqDFeW66@optiplex>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2025 11:38:59 +0530
From: Tanmay Jagdale <tanmay@...vell.com>
To: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>
CC: <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>, <davem@...emloft.net>,
<sgoutham@...vell.com>, <lcherian@...vell.com>, <gakula@...vell.com>,
<jerinj@...vell.com>, <hkelam@...vell.com>, <sbhatta@...vell.com>,
<andrew+netdev@...n.ch>, <edumazet@...gle.com>, <kuba@...nel.org>,
<pabeni@...hat.com>, <bbhushan2@...vell.com>, <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
<pstanner@...hat.com>, <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
<peterz@...radead.org>, <linux@...blig.org>,
<linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <rkannoth@...vell.com>, <sumang@...vell.com>,
<gcherian@...vell.com>
Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH v1 04/15] octeontx2-af: Handle inbound inline
ipsec config in AF
Hi Simon,
On 2025-05-07 at 14:58:32, Simon Horman (horms@...nel.org) wrote:
> On Wed, May 07, 2025 at 10:19:18AM +0100, Simon Horman wrote:
> > On Fri, May 02, 2025 at 06:49:45PM +0530, Tanmay Jagdale wrote:
> > > From: Bharat Bhushan <bbhushan2@...vell.com>
>
> ...
>
> > > diff --git a/drivers/crypto/marvell/octeontx2/otx2_cptpf_mbox.c b/drivers/crypto/marvell/octeontx2/otx2_cptpf_mbox.c
> > > index 5e6f70ac35a7..222419bd5ac9 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/crypto/marvell/octeontx2/otx2_cptpf_mbox.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/crypto/marvell/octeontx2/otx2_cptpf_mbox.c
> > > @@ -326,9 +326,6 @@ static int cptpf_handle_vf_req(struct otx2_cptpf_dev *cptpf,
> > > case MBOX_MSG_GET_KVF_LIMITS:
> > > err = handle_msg_kvf_limits(cptpf, vf, req);
> > > break;
> > > - case MBOX_MSG_RX_INLINE_IPSEC_LF_CFG:
> > > - err = handle_msg_rx_inline_ipsec_lf_cfg(cptpf, req);
> > > - break;
> > >
> > > default:
> > > err = forward_to_af(cptpf, vf, req, size);
> >
> > This removes the only caller of handle_msg_rx_inline_ipsec_lf_cfg()
> > Which in turn removes the only caller of rx_inline_ipsec_lf_cfg(),
> > and in turn send_inline_ipsec_inbound_msg().
> >
> > Those functions should be removed by the same patch that makes the changes
> > above. Which I think could be split into a separate patch from the changes
> > below.
>
> Sorry for not noticing before I sent my previous email,
> but I now see that those functions are removed by the following patch.
> But I do think this needs to be re-arranged a bit to avoid regressions
> wrt W=1 builds.
Yes, I agree. Will rearrange the code blocks in the next version.
Thanks,
Tanmay
Powered by blists - more mailing lists