From: Simon Horman <horms@kernel.org>
To: Larysa Zaremba <larysa.zaremba@intel.com>
Cc: Tony Nguyen <anthony.l.nguyen@intel.com>,
intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org,
Przemek Kitszel <przemyslaw.kitszel@intel.com>,
Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@lunn.ch>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Michal Swiatkowski <michal.swiatkowski@linux.intel.com>,
Mateusz Pacuszka <mateuszx.pacuszka@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH iwl-next v4 1/6] ice: fix check for existing switch rule
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2025 14:55:37 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250220145537.GY1615191@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250214085215.2846063-2-larysa.zaremba@intel.com>
On Fri, Feb 14, 2025 at 09:50:35AM +0100, Larysa Zaremba wrote:
> From: Mateusz Pacuszka <mateuszx.pacuszka@intel.com>
>
> In case the rule already exists and another VSI wants to subscribe to it
> new VSI list is being created and both VSIs are moved to it.
> Currently, the check for already existing VSI with the same rule is done
> based on fdw_id.hw_vsi_id, which applies only to LOOKUP_RX flag.
> Change it to vsi_handle. This is software VSI ID, but it can be applied
> here, because vsi_map itself is also based on it.
>
> Additionally change return status in case the VSI already exists in the
> VSI map to "Already exists". Such case should be handled by the caller.
FWIIW, I might have made this two patches, but I don't feel
particularly strongly about it.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mateusz Pacuszka <mateuszx.pacuszka@intel.com>
> Reviewed-by: Przemek Kitszel <przemyslaw.kitszel@intel.com>
> Reviewed-by: Michal Swiatkowski <michal.swiatkowski@linux.intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Larysa Zaremba <larysa.zaremba@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Simon Horman <horms@kernel.org>
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Simon Horman <horms@kernel.org>
To: Larysa Zaremba <larysa.zaremba@intel.com>
Cc: Tony Nguyen <anthony.l.nguyen@intel.com>,
intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org,
Przemek Kitszel <przemyslaw.kitszel@intel.com>,
Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@lunn.ch>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Michal Swiatkowski <michal.swiatkowski@linux.intel.com>,
Mateusz Pacuszka <mateuszx.pacuszka@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH iwl-next v4 1/6] ice: fix check for existing switch rule
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2025 14:55:37 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250220145537.GY1615191@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250214085215.2846063-2-larysa.zaremba@intel.com>
On Fri, Feb 14, 2025 at 09:50:35AM +0100, Larysa Zaremba wrote:
> From: Mateusz Pacuszka <mateuszx.pacuszka@intel.com>
>
> In case the rule already exists and another VSI wants to subscribe to it
> new VSI list is being created and both VSIs are moved to it.
> Currently, the check for already existing VSI with the same rule is done
> based on fdw_id.hw_vsi_id, which applies only to LOOKUP_RX flag.
> Change it to vsi_handle. This is software VSI ID, but it can be applied
> here, because vsi_map itself is also based on it.
>
> Additionally change return status in case the VSI already exists in the
> VSI map to "Already exists". Such case should be handled by the caller.
FWIIW, I might have made this two patches, but I don't feel
particularly strongly about it.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mateusz Pacuszka <mateuszx.pacuszka@intel.com>
> Reviewed-by: Przemek Kitszel <przemyslaw.kitszel@intel.com>
> Reviewed-by: Michal Swiatkowski <michal.swiatkowski@linux.intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Larysa Zaremba <larysa.zaremba@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Simon Horman <horms@kernel.org>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-02-20 15:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-02-14 8:50 [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH iwl-next v4 0/6] ice: LLDP support for VFs Larysa Zaremba
2025-02-14 8:50 ` Larysa Zaremba
2025-02-14 8:50 ` [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH iwl-next v4 1/6] ice: fix check for existing switch rule Larysa Zaremba
2025-02-14 8:50 ` Larysa Zaremba
2025-02-20 14:55 ` Simon Horman [this message]
2025-02-20 14:55 ` Simon Horman
2025-03-11 10:24 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Romanowski, Rafal
2025-03-11 10:24 ` Romanowski, Rafal
2025-02-14 8:50 ` [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH iwl-next v4 2/6] ice: do not add LLDP-specific filter if not necessary Larysa Zaremba
2025-02-14 8:50 ` Larysa Zaremba
2025-02-20 14:56 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Simon Horman
2025-02-20 14:56 ` Simon Horman
2025-03-11 10:24 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Romanowski, Rafal
2025-03-11 10:24 ` Romanowski, Rafal
2025-02-14 8:50 ` [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH iwl-next v4 3/6] ice: receive LLDP on trusted VFs Larysa Zaremba
2025-02-14 8:50 ` Larysa Zaremba
2025-02-20 14:58 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Simon Horman
2025-02-20 14:58 ` Simon Horman
2025-03-11 10:25 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Romanowski, Rafal
2025-03-11 10:25 ` Romanowski, Rafal
2025-02-14 8:50 ` [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH iwl-next v4 4/6] ice: remove headers argument from ice_tc_count_lkups Larysa Zaremba
2025-02-14 8:50 ` Larysa Zaremba
2025-02-20 14:58 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Simon Horman
2025-02-20 14:58 ` Simon Horman
2025-03-11 10:25 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Romanowski, Rafal
2025-03-11 10:25 ` Romanowski, Rafal
2025-02-14 8:50 ` [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH iwl-next v4 5/6] ice: support egress drop rules on PF Larysa Zaremba
2025-02-14 8:50 ` Larysa Zaremba
2025-02-20 14:58 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Simon Horman
2025-02-20 14:58 ` Simon Horman
2025-03-11 10:26 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Romanowski, Rafal
2025-03-11 10:26 ` Romanowski, Rafal
2025-02-14 8:50 ` [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH iwl-next v4 6/6] ice: enable LLDP TX for VFs through tc Larysa Zaremba
2025-02-14 8:50 ` Larysa Zaremba
2025-02-20 14:59 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Simon Horman
2025-02-20 14:59 ` Simon Horman
2025-03-11 10:26 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Romanowski, Rafal
2025-03-11 10:26 ` Romanowski, Rafal
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20250220145537.GY1615191@kernel.org \
--to=horms@kernel.org \
--cc=andrew+netdev@lunn.ch \
--cc=anthony.l.nguyen@intel.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=larysa.zaremba@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mateuszx.pacuszka@intel.com \
--cc=michal.swiatkowski@linux.intel.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
--cc=przemyslaw.kitszel@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.