Re: [PATCH net-next 2/9] net/sched: act_pedit, setup offload action for action stats query

[Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <mleitner@redhat.com>]

On Thu, Feb 02, 2023 at 09:21:15AM +0200, Oz Shlomo wrote:
>
> On 01/02/2023 22:59, Pedro Tammela wrote:
> > On 01/02/2023 13:10, Oz Shlomo wrote:
> > > A single tc pedit action may be translated to multiple flow_offload
> > > actions.
> > > Offload only actions that translate to a single pedit command value.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Oz Shlomo <ozsh@nvidia.com>
> > > ---
> > >   net/sched/act_pedit.c | 24 +++++++++++++++++++++++-
> > >   1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/net/sched/act_pedit.c b/net/sched/act_pedit.c
> > > index a0378e9f0121..abceef794f28 100644
> > > --- a/net/sched/act_pedit.c
> > > +++ b/net/sched/act_pedit.c
> > > @@ -522,7 +522,29 @@ static int tcf_pedit_offload_act_setup(struct
> > > tc_action *act, void *entry_data,
> > >           }
> > >           *index_inc = k;
> > >       } else {
> > > -        return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > > +        struct flow_offload_action *fl_action = entry_data;
> > > +        u32 last_cmd;
> > > +        int k;
> > > +
> > > +        for (k = 0; k < tcf_pedit_nkeys(act); k++) {
> > > +            u32 cmd = tcf_pedit_cmd(act, k);
> > > +
> > > +            if (k && cmd != last_cmd)
> > > +                return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> >
> > I believe an extack message here is very valuable
> Sure thing, I will add one
> >
> > > +
> > > +            last_cmd = cmd;
> > > +            switch (cmd) {
> > > +            case TCA_PEDIT_KEY_EX_CMD_SET:
> > > +                fl_action->id = FLOW_ACTION_MANGLE;
> > > +                break;
> > > +            case TCA_PEDIT_KEY_EX_CMD_ADD:
> > > +                fl_action->id = FLOW_ACTION_ADD;
> > > +                break;
> > > +            default:
> > > +                NL_SET_ERR_MSG_MOD(extack, "Unsupported pedit
> > > command offload");
> > > +                return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > > +            }
> > > +        }
> >
> > Shouldn't this switch case be outside of the for-loop?
>
> You are right, this can be done outside the for loop.

To before the for-loop, that is?
Because otherwise it will parse all commands and then fail, which seems heavier
than how it is here.

- validate the first one
- ensure the rest follows

>
> I will refactor the code
>
> >
> > >       }
> > >         return 0;
> >
>