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 80E4113D531; Mon, 14 Apr 2025 16:51:49 +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=1744649509; cv=none; b=WTE/Pi/qm9p2dWNC5PYHItDVz5e4FEPPUCWyEKmqGLCDaR6+qVvO/YCWaG4h5fYEVxtBdKaUxstKCWobcjGt7pM0socchRBDqlChY5wVN9lgQJRhBfM7B8js6qMSF/HvjO1QLqvoMTeST6YaItzScBsx5N08RFhWwU2ZIXQRtrk= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1744649509; c=relaxed/simple; bh=t5VNNbpw8fzc7S87KDIOS3ZQiAD+gZo1uhWUUtvPEMg=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=Znk51v9iXbvnetX4AmjSiklPVyh2Df83EboQLDzvd7sTvRTmhgOrFPfnB+PoChRRbwFG2swVPpt04ZEEug+MkOgfaZOFSmn5mQXBbWQbFyVZySTUTLQaBngGybpzyejBOMHxl3KpJuy5nc5n1FPVNqlVhfUn+K4q+7Ps3Di6t8Y= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=rB1pSCdC; 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="rB1pSCdC" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2B1B2C4CEE2; Mon, 14 Apr 2025 16:51:48 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1744649509; bh=t5VNNbpw8fzc7S87KDIOS3ZQiAD+gZo1uhWUUtvPEMg=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=rB1pSCdCDjREXqLhK/slGMaGCmaGWt13IdoDBCKco31S5B3oIe9jicWQeySFH7otz kI+T8T+0mYrXHyOVwHeJBxSBbihVCzJn65CUdZjuCiaaet2sX+tvZv1kN5bNy8+5Ks na1LeLVrzm2uBQSkHZzIe8BxsuE4i2CiPigTOrZpE549UEKF5/pbDOEhl14jcCyolU bHDa3Vgqor8KfZBqVyuavuT+yCfl20wF217MIJJGqJccDrbQ1E/AOOytUvM8+Z6csw aPJac/GEYOkAuY10iSt9rvm7TKTUIbfseXa+sUaz9Yro3C983oaQo2dd8LyQEg4Ic9 5BYoe4JqaipVQ== Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2025 09:51:47 -0700 From: Jakub Kicinski To: Steffen Klassert Cc: Cosmin Ratiu , , Hangbin Liu , Jay Vosburgh , Andrew Lunn , "David S . Miller" , Eric Dumazet , Paolo Abeni , Nikolay Aleksandrov , Simon Horman , Saeed Mahameed , Tariq Toukan , Jianbo Liu , Herbert Xu , Ayush Sawal , Tony Nguyen , "Przemek Kitszel" , Sunil Goutham , Geetha sowjanya , Subbaraya Sundeep , hariprasad , Bharat Bhushan , Louis Peens , "Leon Romanovsky" , Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 0/6] xfrm & bonding: Correct use of xso.real_dev Message-ID: <20250414095147.02800774@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: References: <20250411074958.2858496-1-cratiu@nvidia.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 Mon, 14 Apr 2025 12:11:36 +0200 Steffen Klassert wrote: > I'm still a bit skeptical about the bonding offloads itself as > mentioned here: > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/ZsbkdzvjVf3GiYHa@gauss3.secunet.de/ So am I, FWIW. > but I'm OK with this particular pachset. > > How should we merge this patchset? It touches several subsystems, > including xfrm. I'm fine merging it through the ipsec-next tree, > but would be also ok if it goes though the net-next tree if > that's easier. No strong preference, but I think xfrm tree makes most sense. It touches a few other directories but all code here is xfrm related. -- pw-bot: au