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 BB4998F59 for ; Thu, 23 Nov 2023 03:53:34 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="bH1MFVVM" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AA6DFC433C7; Thu, 23 Nov 2023 03:53:33 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1700711614; bh=sPU8LaXBokpjRLLdNLc7piWjZkk6xJIANQ2OGdHCOGI=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=bH1MFVVMOlG/PCj0l4nX/Cg/fDJjW3c0oXB+HZBXubVWwg3pbppqDX/bhMP0vQp6W ed7x9LHlxdm3kArR+xszTuRsiYtqu8EdlCmKJcWTb+gT5WgTWt6wsCeqNrdcZ4ExQs YEx3DoYEVwO1V0siloyPCUw+gqtnD/BbA8GpreAsPt/dWpUKxvxhFWr7xSDDlr8uXF em97oQphwdun0/TEBsSZDea1t7no1JMZ2Dx28qpAnZB4gUQSi66n5IFZiunH+NjLJ9 BEWJNO0Ozqjto5uFHzEzhmz4gs7BvlNl+12zHNLbeufxts5b8Rpa/IC0njTvHaXaVH OAgAMbxvhPrBg== Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2023 19:53:32 -0800 From: Jakub Kicinski To: Leon Romanovsky Cc: Jiri Pirko , Saeed Mahameed , "David S. Miller" , Paolo Abeni , Eric Dumazet , Saeed Mahameed , netdev@vger.kernel.org, Tariq Toukan , Jianbo Liu Subject: Re: [net 09/15] net/mlx5e: Forbid devlink reload if IPSec rules are offloaded Message-ID: <20231122195332.1eb22597@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: <20231122112832.GB4760@unreal> References: <20231122014804.27716-1-saeed@kernel.org> <20231122014804.27716-10-saeed@kernel.org> <20231122093546.GA4760@unreal> <20231122112832.GB4760@unreal> 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-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Wed, 22 Nov 2023 13:28:32 +0200 Leon Romanovsky wrote: > Unfortunately not, we (mlx5) were forced by employer of one of > the netdev maintainers to keep uplink netdev in devlink reload > while we are in eswitch. The way you phrased this makes it sound like employers of netdev maintainers get to exert power over this community. This is an unacceptable insinuation. DEVLINK_RELOAD_LIMIT_NO_RESET should not cause link loss, sure. Even if Meta required that you implemented that (which it does not, AFAIK) - it's just an upstream API.