netdev - Re: [PATCH net] net/mlx5e: Fix ethtool -N flow-type ip4 to RSS context

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <8a92051f-8169-44a1-a26d-85efa71a5e31@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2025 10:58:10 +0200
From: Tariq Toukan <ttoukan.linux@...il.com>
To: Gal Pressman <gal@...dia.com>, Maxim Mikityanskiy <maxtram95@...il.com>
Cc: Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...dia.com>, Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...dia.com>,
 Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>, Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>,
 "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
 Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
 netdev@...r.kernel.org, Maxim Mikityanskiy <maxim@...valent.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] net/mlx5e: Fix ethtool -N flow-type ip4 to RSS
 context

On 20/03/2025 10:44, Gal Pressman wrote:
> On 20/03/2025 10:28, Maxim Mikityanskiy wrote:
>> On Thu, 20 Mar 2025 at 10:25, Gal Pressman <gal@...dia.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hey Maxim!
>>>
>>> On 19/03/2025 14:45, Maxim Mikityanskiy wrote:
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_fs_ethtool.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_fs_ethtool.c
>>>> index 773624bb2c5d..d68230a7b9f4 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_fs_ethtool.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_fs_ethtool.c
>>>> @@ -884,8 +884,10 @@ static int flow_type_to_traffic_type(u32 flow_type)
>>>>        case ESP_V6_FLOW:
>>>>                return MLX5_TT_IPV6_IPSEC_ESP;
>>>>        case IPV4_FLOW:
>>>> +     case IP_USER_FLOW:
>>>
>>> They're the same, but I think IPV4_USER_FLOW is the "modern" define that
>>> should be used.
>>
>> Yeah, I used IP_USER_FLOW for consistency with other places in this
>> file. If you prefer that, I can resubmit with IPV4_USER_FLOW.
> 
> I don't mind, up to Tariq.
> We can followup with a patch that converts all usages.
> 

Please keep using IP_USER_FLOW for consistency with existing code.
We may converts them all together later.