Re: [PATCH net-next] efx: convert to new udp_tunnel infrastructure

[Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>]

On Tue, 21 Jul 2020 13:05:39 +0100 Edward Cree wrote:
> On 20/07/2020 18:21, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Mon, 20 Jul 2020 12:45:54 +0100 Edward Cree wrote:  
> >> I think I'd prefer to keep the switch() that explicitlychecks
> >>  for UDP_TUNNEL_TYPE_GENEVE; even though the infrastructure
> >>  makes sure it won't ever not be, I'd still feel more comfortable
> >>  that way.  But it's up to you.  
> > 
> > To me the motivation of expressing capabilities is for the core 
> > to be able to do the necessary checking (and make more intelligent
> > decisions). All the drivers I've converted make the assumption they
> > won't see tunnel types they don't support.  
> 
> Like I say, up to you.  It's not how I'd write it but if that's how
>  you're doing all the drivers then consistency is probably good.

I'll put a WARN() there, as a sign of "this can never happen".

> >> Could we not keep a 'valid'/'used' flag in the table, used in
> >>  roughly the same way we were checking count != 0?  
> > 
> > How about we do the !port check in efx_ef10_udp_tnl_has_port()?
> > 
> > Per-entry valid / used flag seems a little wasteful.
> > 
> > Another option is to have a reserved tunnel type for invalid / unused.  
> 
> Reserved tunnel type seems best to me.  (sfc generally uses all-ones
>  values for reserved, so this would be 0xffff.)

I'll do

#define TUNNEL_ENCAP_UDP_PORT_ENTRY_INVALID 0xffff

Can I add that in mcdi_pcol.h or better next to struct efx_udp_tunnel?

mcdi_pcol.h looks generated.