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

[Oz Shlomo <ozsh@nvidia.com>]

On 03/02/2023 17:31, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner wrote:
> 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
Right
>> I will refactor the code
>>
>>>>        }
>>>>          return 0;