From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] net : sched: cls_api: deal with egdev path only if
 needed
Date: Thu, 24 May 2018 22:13:47 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <20180524.221347.1439890185309496728.davem@davemloft.net>
References: <1527092688-27496-1-git-send-email-ogerlitz@mellanox.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: jiri@mellanox.com, jakub.kicinski@netronome.com,
        paulb@mellanox.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        ASAP_Direct_Dev@mellanox.com
To: ogerlitz@mellanox.com
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from shards.monkeyblade.net ([184.105.139.130]:54296 "EHLO
        shards.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1753315AbeEYCNt (ORCPT
        <rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>); Thu, 24 May 2018 22:13:49 -0400
In-Reply-To: <1527092688-27496-1-git-send-email-ogerlitz@mellanox.com>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

From: Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@mellanox.com>
Date: Wed, 23 May 2018 19:24:48 +0300

> When dealing with ingress rule on a netdev, if we did fine through the
> conventional path, there's no need to continue into the egdev route,
> and we can stop right there.
> 
> Not doing so may cause a 2nd rule to be added by the cls api layer
> with the ingress being the egdev.
> 
> For example, under sriov switchdev scheme, a user rule of VFR A --> VFR B
> will end up with two HW rules (1) VF A --> VF B and (2) uplink --> VF B
> 
> Fixes: 208c0f4b5237 ('net: sched: use tc_setup_cb_call to call per-block callbacks')
> Signed-off-by: Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@mellanox.com>

Applied and queued up for -stable.

> As I wrote in [1], we are asking this patch to go into net and 
> stable >= 4.15 but not carried into net-next.

Please send me a revert with a detailed commit message when this
gets merged into net-next.

Thanks.