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: <CAKErNvrnTEDNg+Fi2G2OyZuv411YRX4ELd-R-91sS4neHcB_kw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2025 11:20:39 +0200
From: Maxim Mikityanskiy <maxtram95@...il.com>
To: Tariq Toukan <ttoukan.linux@...il.com>
Cc: Gal Pressman <gal@...dia.com>, 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 Thu, 20 Mar 2025 at 10:58, Tariq Toukan <ttoukan.linux@...il.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> 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.

OK, sounds good to me, keeping as is.

Thanks for the reviews!