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 10FEA22FAD3 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2025 15:29:34 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1740670176; cv=none; b=WOL1LER0t8IkF34qD4B2CcavZHIE7WSWpqDS3kCsab9zyIsjxAozQ/h/nCwtiZIolCphsR3nEs6XLH0fpTjfirkk3Aa6hYb6wb1mPgmOI8LKxJC8pyrz0HKncXQQSTbYbAwv1VJYqOgkIh+6Ste+cNjVIFOfhCpTEJVoWnaYPMI= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1740670176; c=relaxed/simple; bh=QUpTJK9tlDJVqdDLV9qis63xou0rViMbX5C60ys6IJA=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=R1SAome4JKFBPIwOxmCUcecuY52tCzr2v5hpqUdavX71daLF/v11Sy8idzvQO6gWjQbnplMaMwfcZ7tBCnB0zWT28/JheCYIf2HhSueiT+pc1jsIUA9qq/rJ41corHtGuz1iewJGA1rSK52gXDPi8QNuJ0HBrbwd5TXXLCak1kc= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=e7brH9Yn; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="e7brH9Yn" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id ED7B8C4CEDD; Thu, 27 Feb 2025 15:29:33 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1740670174; bh=QUpTJK9tlDJVqdDLV9qis63xou0rViMbX5C60ys6IJA=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=e7brH9YnsPQFi2xqwCGOTuWdTkLhVSiCtc8cdwtfsbDjLltDpbLR4oMNXw9ex5194 niolhm+cCvJg/7acFRYQClInHldMdEfLvtinH2VbwaaiQFiUcySENg7u7Gh40TPkmc bSzO96ekk/75xkLp4/kpcBK/pxY/vToZFP7tl1sl4KkqljoqisOSOajuOiKCITrliV mY3kud9Qxgh31d6rIfbX0U7C7IIkLCvyPyCFDr93JZE5B11Tph0Z6fEmqs4DjyybAA kNSvpt+NaDNrb6f/7qNplxmf50SanLVoDPRXbbAcR0NaMetUPGLaOMJG141iQrFQRp 889571eyMTwTQ== Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2025 07:29:33 -0800 From: Jakub Kicinski To: Edward Cree Cc: Gal Pressman , "David S. Miller" , Eric Dumazet , Paolo Abeni , Andrew Lunn , netdev@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Lunn , Simon Horman , Joe Damato , Tariq Toukan Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: ethtool: Don't check if RSS context exists in case of context 0 Message-ID: <20250227072933.5bbb4e2c@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: <275696e3-b2dd-3000-1d7b-633fff4748f0@gmail.com> References: <20250225071348.509432-1-gal@nvidia.com> <20250225170128.590baea1@kernel.org> <8a53adaa-7870-46a9-9e67-b534a87a70ed@nvidia.com> <20250226182717.0bead94b@kernel.org> <20250226204503.77010912@kernel.org> <275696e3-b2dd-3000-1d7b-633fff4748f0@gmail.com> 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 Thu, 27 Feb 2025 15:18:47 +0000 Edward Cree wrote: > On 27/02/2025 04:45, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > The ordering guarantees of ntuple filters are a bit unclear. > > My understanding was that first match terminates the search, > > actually, so your example wouldn't work :S > > My understanding is that in most ntuple implementations more- > specific filters override less-specific ones, in which case > Gal's setup would work. The behavior of partially overlapping rules being undefined? > On other implementations which use the rule number as a > position (like the API/naming implies) you could insert the > 5-tuple rule first and that would work too. > > > Oh, I think Ed may tell us that using context 0 + queue offset is legit. > > I hadn't actually thought of that, but yes that's true too. > > Anyway, 'mechanism, not policy' says we should allow ctx 0 > unless there's some mechanism reason why it can't be > supported, and I don't see one. I never uttered the thought that lead me to opposing. ctx 0 is a poor man's pass / accept. If someone needs a pass we should add an explicit "action pass". Or am I missing something magical that ctx 0 would do that's not 100% the same as pass (modulo the queue offset)? Using ctx 0 as implicit pass is a very easy thing to miss for driver developers. But yeah, the queue offset is legit.