[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201204074514.6a249076@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.DHCP.thefacebook.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2020 07:45:14 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Jarod Wilson <jarod@...hat.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ivan Vecera <ivecera@...hat.com>,
Jay Vosburgh <j.vosburgh@...il.com>,
Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@...il.com>,
Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Thomas Davis <tadavis@....gov>, Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v3] bonding: fix feature flag setting at init time
On Thu, 3 Dec 2020 22:14:12 -0500 Jarod Wilson wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 11:50 AM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 2 Dec 2020 19:43:57 -0500 Jarod Wilson wrote:
> > > bond_dev->hw_features |= NETIF_F_GSO_ENCAP_ALL | NETIF_F_GSO_UDP_L4;
> > > -#ifdef CONFIG_XFRM_OFFLOAD
> > > - bond_dev->hw_features |= BOND_XFRM_FEATURES;
> > > -#endif /* CONFIG_XFRM_OFFLOAD */
> > > bond_dev->features |= bond_dev->hw_features;
> > > bond_dev->features |= NETIF_F_HW_VLAN_CTAG_TX | NETIF_F_HW_VLAN_STAG_TX;
> > > #ifdef CONFIG_XFRM_OFFLOAD
> > > - /* Disable XFRM features if this isn't an active-backup config */
> > > - if (BOND_MODE(bond) != BOND_MODE_ACTIVEBACKUP)
> > > - bond_dev->features &= ~BOND_XFRM_FEATURES;
> > > + bond_dev->hw_features |= BOND_XFRM_FEATURES;
> > > + /* Only enable XFRM features if this is an active-backup config */
> > > + if (BOND_MODE(bond) == BOND_MODE_ACTIVEBACKUP)
> > > + bond_dev->features |= BOND_XFRM_FEATURES;
> > > #endif /* CONFIG_XFRM_OFFLOAD */
> >
> > This makes no functional change, or am I reading it wrong?
>
> You are correct, there's ultimately no functional change there, it
> primarily just condenses the code down to a single #ifdef block, and
> doesn't add and then remove BOND_XFRM_FEATURES from
> bond_dev->features, instead omitting it initially and only adding it
> when in AB mode. I'd poked at the code in that area while trying to
> get to the bottom of this, thought it made it more understandable, so
> I left it in, but ultimately, it's not necessary to fix the problem
> here.
Makes sense, but please split it out and send separately to net-next.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists