[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <0ba19058c0b455fe0ef9e272e981f78a977c0b82.camel@mellanox.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2019 00:37:27 +0000
From: Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>
To: "pablo@...filter.org" <pablo@...filter.org>
CC: "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org" <netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH mlx5-next 7/7] net/mlx5: TC: Offload flow table rules
On Tue, 2019-11-12 at 00:34 +0100, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> From: Paul Blakey <paulb@...lanox.com>
>
> Since both tc rules and flow table rules are of the same format,
> we can re-use tc parsing for that, and move the flow table rules
> to their steering domain - In this case, the next chain after
> max tc chain.
>
> Issue: 1929510
> Change-Id: I68bf14d5398b91cf26cc7c7f19dab64ba8757c01
> Signed-off-by: Paul Blakey <paulb@...lanox.com>
> Reviewed-by: Mark Bloch <markb@...lanox.com>
> Acked-by: Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>
Series LGTM,
couple of things:
1) Paul should have removed Issue and change-Id tags
I can do this myself when i apply those to my trees.
2) patches #1..#6 can perfectly go mlx5-next,
already tried and i had to resolve some trivial conflicts, but all
good.
3) this patch needs to be on top of net-next, due to dependency with
TC_SETUP_FT, I will resubmit it through my normal pull request
procedure after applying all other patches in this series to mlx5-next
shared branch.
All patches will land in net-next in couple of days, i guess there is
no rush to have them there immediately ?
Thanks,
saeed.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists