[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5e1689de-0448-e4a7-9714-86189549ea69@mojatatu.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2021 07:05:52 -0400
From: Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>
To: Simon Horman <simon.horman@...igine.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
oss-drivers@...igine.com, Baowen Zheng <baowen.zheng@...igine.com>,
Louis Peens <louis.peens@...igine.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/3] flow_offload: allow user to offload tc
action to net device
On 2021-07-22 5:19 a.m., Simon Horman wrote:
Triggered by my observation on 2/3 went back and looked at this again to
see if we have same problem with notification on REPLACE case (I think
we do) but here's another comment:
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(tcf_action_offload_cmd);
> +
> /* Returns numbers of initialized actions or negative error. */
>
> int tcf_action_init(struct net *net, struct tcf_proto *tp, struct nlattr *nla,
> @@ -1514,6 +1544,9 @@ static int tcf_action_add(struct net *net, struct nlattr *nla,
> return ret;
> ret = tcf_add_notify(net, n, actions, portid, attr_size, extack);
>
> + /* offload actions to hardware if possible */
> + tcf_action_offload_cmd(actions, extack);
> +
Above seems to be unconditional whether hw update is requested or not?
The comment says the right thing ("if possible") but the code
should have checked some sort of skip_sw check?
cheers,
jamal
Powered by blists - more mailing lists