From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5337C17440 for ; Tue, 12 Nov 2019 20:32:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8567D206A3 for ; Tue, 12 Nov 2019 20:32:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727001AbfKLUcg (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Nov 2019 15:32:36 -0500 Received: from correo.us.es ([193.147.175.20]:42234 "EHLO mail.us.es" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726697AbfKLUcg (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Nov 2019 15:32:36 -0500 Received: from antivirus1-rhel7.int (unknown [192.168.2.11]) by mail.us.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5AAD6E34C7 for ; Tue, 12 Nov 2019 21:32:31 +0100 (CET) Received: from antivirus1-rhel7.int (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by antivirus1-rhel7.int (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D5C5BAACC for ; Tue, 12 Nov 2019 21:32:31 +0100 (CET) Received: by antivirus1-rhel7.int (Postfix, from userid 99) id 41A57DA3A9; Tue, 12 Nov 2019 21:32:31 +0100 (CET) Received: from antivirus1-rhel7.int (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by antivirus1-rhel7.int (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3411BDA72F; Tue, 12 Nov 2019 21:32:29 +0100 (CET) Received: from 192.168.1.97 (192.168.1.97) by antivirus1-rhel7.int (F-Secure/fsigk_smtp/550/antivirus1-rhel7.int); Tue, 12 Nov 2019 21:32:29 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Status: clean(F-Secure/fsigk_smtp/550/antivirus1-rhel7.int) Received: from us.es (sys.soleta.eu [212.170.55.40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: 1984lsi) by entrada.int (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 10EDD4251480; Tue, 12 Nov 2019 21:32:29 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2019 21:32:30 +0100 X-SMTPAUTHUS: auth mail.us.es From: Pablo Neira Ayuso To: Saeed Mahameed Cc: "davem@davemloft.net" , "netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org" , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH mlx5-next 7/7] net/mlx5: TC: Offload flow table rules Message-ID: <20191112203230.p3lb3ivhsravctxz@salvia> References: <20191111233430.25120-1-pablo@netfilter.org> <20191111233430.25120-8-pablo@netfilter.org> <0ba19058c0b455fe0ef9e272e981f78a977c0b82.camel@mellanox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <0ba19058c0b455fe0ef9e272e981f78a977c0b82.camel@mellanox.com> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2) X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org Hi Saeed, On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 12:37:27AM +0000, Saeed Mahameed wrote: > On Tue, 2019-11-12 at 00:34 +0100, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: > > From: Paul Blakey > > > > 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 > > Reviewed-by: Mark Bloch > > Acked-by: Pablo Neira Ayuso > > 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. Thanks. > 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 ? No rush on my side. We have to wait for David to tell us if he is fine to apply this patchset into net-next, then pull from your tree the first client for this code in a couple of days as you suggest.