From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (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 BF9C7154A0 for ; Fri, 14 Jul 2023 18:40:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B4511C433C8; Fri, 14 Jul 2023 18:40:17 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1689360018; bh=qHaTl4yRkeaUJ6f/KP5OJUSTQcmrqQslpzQe+gfTY30=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=GXaheJtTBBAWepRARnwP718bg8S0UMWm4fKromRkzOEA6UYYCf3x5/g4kVitZqmfl DnHW1a6fVY5qyWDMzfbB4jbYRLiC9UMqbDv6EcGUf5MvYhQ7je9pBApVOTkOfM8VEV PMxH05dIwNUW6MiWFdmuwok489GVuxnSL1WOPWFd4qZNm1g/OAZu6Hg9X80/F51YkD WbI3WW9o4jrFWUym43tCzlxDrZQP/GUeX13+7HeZ9DiIyVeKfJYokBypvKC6eEeJFO SBN9aUgEoCMiVa3ZLeAlSpEjWI1/FK4y0AmdUHbmrwsQYgDEdLdr1oeo0K3c93Snae 0d8No1aI9NG0Q== Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2023 21:40:13 +0300 From: Leon Romanovsky To: Jakub Kicinski Cc: Saeed Mahameed , Jianbo Liu , Eric Dumazet , Mark Bloch , netdev@vger.kernel.org, Paolo Abeni , "David S . Miller" , Simon Horman Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 09/12] net/mlx5: Compare with old_dest param to modify rule destination Message-ID: <20230714184013.GJ41919@unreal> References: <5fd15672173653d6904333ef197b605b0644e205.1689064922.git.leonro@nvidia.com> <20230712173259.4756fe08@kernel.org> <20230713063345.GG41919@unreal> <20230713100401.5fe0fa77@kernel.org> <20230713174317.GH41919@unreal> <20230713110556.682d21ba@kernel.org> <20230713185833.GI41919@unreal> <20230713201727.6dfe7549@kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@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: <20230713201727.6dfe7549@kernel.org> On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 08:17:27PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Thu, 13 Jul 2023 21:58:33 +0300 Leon Romanovsky wrote: > > > TC packet rewrites or IPsec comes first? > > > > In theory, we support any order, but in real life I don't think that TC > > before IPsec is really valuable. > > I asked the question poorly. To clearer, you're saying that: > > a) host <-> TC <-> IPsec <-> "wire"/switch > or > b) host <-> IPsec <-> TC <-> "wire"/switch > > ? It depends on configuration order, if user configures TC first, it will be a), if he/she configures IPsec first, it will be b). I just think that option b) is really matters. Thanks