From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jiri Pirko Subject: Re: [PATCH net] net/sched: cls_flower: Avoid attempt to delete from hw a flow which was not offloaded Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 16:16:14 +0200 Message-ID: <20171025141614.GC1976@nanopsycho.orion> References: <1508939080-22317-1-git-send-email-ogerlitz@mellanox.com> <20171025135820.GB1976@nanopsycho.orion> <8e6bb07f-7967-941b-cb67-a9c9af56fc6d@mellanox.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: "David S. Miller" , netdev@vger.kernel.org, Jiri Pirko , mlxsw@mellanox.com, Roi Dayan , Paul Blakey To: Or Gerlitz Return-path: Received: from mail-wr0-f193.google.com ([209.85.128.193]:47533 "EHLO mail-wr0-f193.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751956AbdJYOQQ (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Oct 2017 10:16:16 -0400 Received: by mail-wr0-f193.google.com with SMTP id y39so144253wrd.4 for ; Wed, 25 Oct 2017 07:16:16 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <8e6bb07f-7967-941b-cb67-a9c9af56fc6d@mellanox.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 04:07:26PM CEST, ogerlitz@mellanox.com wrote: >On 10/25/2017 4:58 PM, Jiri Pirko wrote: >> Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 03:44:40PM CEST, ogerlitz@mellanox.com wrote: >> > If we failed to offload a flow to HW, we should not be attempting to delete >> > it from the HW. Also, on this case, we should be err-ing only if the flow is >> > not is SW, fix both issues. >> > >> > Fixes: 717503b9cf57 ('net: sched: convert cls_flower->egress_dev users to tc_setup_cb_egdev infra') >> > Signed-off-by: Or Gerlitz >> > --- >> > net/sched/cls_flower.c | 11 ++++------- >> > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) >> > >> > diff --git a/net/sched/cls_flower.c b/net/sched/cls_flower.c >> > index 16f58ab..b98e0cb 100644 >> > --- a/net/sched/cls_flower.c >> > +++ b/net/sched/cls_flower.c >> > @@ -230,15 +230,12 @@ static int fl_hw_replace_filter(struct tcf_proto *tp, >> > >> > err = tc_setup_cb_call(block, &f->exts, TC_SETUP_CLSFLOWER, >> > &cls_flower, skip_sw); >> > - if (err < 0) { >> > - fl_hw_destroy_filter(tp, f); >> > - return err; >> >> As I wrote in the other thread: Yes, that is intentional. The thing is, there might be multiple block callbacks registered and to be called. If there is a fail with one, we need to cleanup all. So in your case you have 1 cb registered, that means that in case of an error during insertion, you will get cb called to remove. Driver has to take care of that. I was checking that and was under impression that mlx5 deals with that. > >I see, what about the other line I deleted of blankly returning err no matter >regardless if we' re on skip_sw or not, do you agree this fix is needed, also >see below No. That is not needed. The current behaviour with the skip_sw is the same as the original. I don't understand why you want to change it. I also don't undestand why you do 2 things in one patch. >> > - } else if (err > 0) { >> > + >> > + if (err > 0) >> > f->flags |= TCA_CLS_FLAGS_IN_HW; >> > - } >> > >> > - if (skip_sw && !(f->flags & TCA_CLS_FLAGS_IN_HW)) >> > - return -EINVAL; >> > + if (skip_sw) >> > + return err; >> > >> > return 0; >> > } > >here's too, I don't see why we should return -EINVAL etc, and what's wrong >with the code as it wad before your patch, I just returned it to how it was >before which I think is correct > >Or.