From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mx1.secunet.com (mx1.secunet.com [62.96.220.36]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2A77321348; Wed, 16 Apr 2025 09:05:29 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=62.96.220.36 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1744794332; cv=none; b=bvLuSJMdWnlKAwkuPQ7szFsSmTuQN6PGa9NagkPi+0yyVugOZtJ3jmauIyrVY7E7+D6Sx0XEMcssFNdhjTs0Yddgv4FbimKLy4bBmKsOr6TSuqhCzwK134gN4zLAi8hz7RlZhqj6H10C5MrOBlMVpboijc/q/+nOnI614dcsKi4= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1744794332; c=relaxed/simple; bh=uMEWrCr78cmv0MuAdTeAQGXVKQxOSKaTL/7Tz6bCxOs=; h=Date:From:To:CC:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=AeK/tTRcRrGG3oJW9CmE2Thhku/QdL9C+A3GT9PThTPoY8pDnpxNi1LiCTWGJKbHWQXZfenwPSgpFEqclPBDdF48h7ohQHLZT1oEuAdeItRtfI5PV/aucaOL0DbTZKDXQD2ihcUARmQqyhft631rcSIMN3uMYOU/bLjPLKJE3ms= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=secunet.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=secunet.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=secunet.com header.i=@secunet.com header.b=ROrmdjIb; arc=none smtp.client-ip=62.96.220.36 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=secunet.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=secunet.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=secunet.com header.i=@secunet.com header.b="ROrmdjIb" Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.secunet.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4C0120606; Wed, 16 Apr 2025 11:05:27 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: by secunet Received: from mx1.secunet.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mx1.secunet.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YQcQYRyHQdEo; Wed, 16 Apr 2025 11:05:25 +0200 (CEST) Received: from cas-essen-01.secunet.de (rl1.secunet.de [10.53.40.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.secunet.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8DEE720842; Wed, 16 Apr 2025 11:05:25 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mx1.secunet.com 8DEE720842 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=secunet.com; s=202301; t=1744794325; bh=MJrDaKdfNbtRshuh/vBRKkh3LN3w8BO8t5Sxeu32lbw=; h=Date:From:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=ROrmdjIboXoD+2c+PXqeh8M1HiYoAfuSINfR02ioI2pn4hncqT2jZPNMyzXUSmM2z 75pDC9mXUKgp/5+hKu0Gctd3F3e9wjgJrEzLkCVwR2L5zcoasPE0ImVhXlCzu/knVs 7bgGTTu80W4A6JT/tZ2z7l8theayBIU8aWDfhwzqlmqhhU0SXERfhHrk8uH1mwOi/l VZmXtJrR2FOalQ66/ZnPCLMgQVBPEy/O3LabnPgOrixX8WEkgD8CvcktMvPxvPAFUu lrLutAHupZlIYWF7ve66xrjRNZdHQLOeDtbehrAblvHTP42buJ84VTG3kLYyW/vu7I X7bSWeBfAn9Fg== Received: from mbx-essen-02.secunet.de (10.53.40.198) by cas-essen-01.secunet.de (10.53.40.201) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2507.39; Wed, 16 Apr 2025 11:05:25 +0200 Received: from gauss2.secunet.de (10.182.7.193) by mbx-essen-02.secunet.de (10.53.40.198) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2507.39; Wed, 16 Apr 2025 11:05:24 +0200 Received: by gauss2.secunet.de (Postfix, from userid 1000) id C07713182D28; Wed, 16 Apr 2025 11:05:24 +0200 (CEST) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2025 11:05:24 +0200 From: Steffen Klassert To: Jakub Kicinski CC: Cosmin Ratiu , , Hangbin Liu , Jay Vosburgh , Andrew Lunn , "David S . Miller" , "Eric Dumazet" , Paolo Abeni , "Nikolay Aleksandrov" , Simon Horman , "Saeed Mahameed" , Tariq Toukan , Jianbo Liu , Herbert Xu , Ayush Sawal , Tony Nguyen , "Przemek Kitszel" , Sunil Goutham , Geetha sowjanya , Subbaraya Sundeep , hariprasad , Bharat Bhushan , Louis Peens , "Leon Romanovsky" , Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 0/6] xfrm & bonding: Correct use of xso.real_dev Message-ID: References: <20250411074958.2858496-1-cratiu@nvidia.com> <20250414095147.02800774@kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20250414095147.02800774@kernel.org> X-ClientProxiedBy: cas-essen-02.secunet.de (10.53.40.202) To mbx-essen-02.secunet.de (10.53.40.198) X-EXCLAIMER-MD-CONFIG: 2c86f778-e09b-4440-8b15-867914633a10 On Mon, Apr 14, 2025 at 09:51:47AM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Mon, 14 Apr 2025 12:11:36 +0200 Steffen Klassert wrote: > > I'm still a bit skeptical about the bonding offloads itself as > > mentioned here: > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/ZsbkdzvjVf3GiYHa@gauss3.secunet.de/ > > So am I, FWIW. > > > but I'm OK with this particular pachset. > > > > How should we merge this patchset? It touches several subsystems, > > including xfrm. I'm fine merging it through the ipsec-next tree, > > but would be also ok if it goes though the net-next tree if > > that's easier. > > No strong preference, but I think xfrm tree makes most sense. > It touches a few other directories but all code here is xfrm > related. Ok, I'll take them into ipsec-next.