[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171025150917.6d194051@cakuba.netronome.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 15:09:17 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kubakici@...pl>
To: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net, jhs@...atatu.com,
xiyou.wangcong@...il.com, mlxsw@...lanox.com, andrew@...n.ch,
vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com, f.fainelli@...il.com,
michael.chan@...adcom.com, ganeshgr@...lsio.com,
jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com, saeedm@...lanox.com,
matanb@...lanox.com, leonro@...lanox.com, idosch@...lanox.com,
simon.horman@...ronome.com, pieter.jansenvanvuuren@...ronome.com,
john.hurley@...ronome.com, alexander.h.duyck@...el.com
Subject: Re: [patch net-next 2/4] net: sched: move the can_offload check
from binding phase to rule insertion phase
On Wed, 25 Oct 2017 16:34:58 +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>
>
> This restores the original behaviour before the block callbacks were
> introduced. Allow the drivers to do binding of block always, no matter
> if the NETIF_F_HW_TC feature is on or off. Move the check to the block
> callback which is called for rule insertion.
>
> Reported-by: Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>
> Signed-off-by: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>
Could you explain why not add this check to the core? IIUC every
driver will have to duplicate it if we want to keep the behaviour
of tc offloads we have today.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists