From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [198.175.65.13]) (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 23E8022097; Wed, 25 Jun 2025 06:41:45 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.175.65.13 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1750833707; cv=none; b=SSdS6itAiCA7SUqM5zdOSD/w8UcFehshoIyK4JkT/JVsMw9wjxrZJWqFafcwxMWLbtHTqgSK3vFpO+tLAJyxUJ8W3P0tuOvqGhEZGvR/6p2TZcVMqiR12Zl7bBtmUETKzNmLTWVWbLJlFqJXoj6f+conZ8jJxXtv8a6fA0QOTXU= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1750833707; c=relaxed/simple; bh=2aNN0LNK3Qf6tRAO1HF7UcVQnZGCt20oYm9NewVYg5E=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=buyrUnXmUfu5vxIFYFvAJxB6c7CQIfyHu6pk6DpFoWAVOIl2mIIxalSjtrEFEjWZhmBBDdh8DPsKpzELzw+LlxzeMGrbtJvL+F0k6Qfz1o+oiG7uQK8DXksTHUmnN+PU2Mufs5OduDu7rv+d+oLrywSswgHVPwm6f/Lr3wL4rp8= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b=WVl50A4K; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.175.65.13 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b="WVl50A4K" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1750833706; x=1782369706; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=2aNN0LNK3Qf6tRAO1HF7UcVQnZGCt20oYm9NewVYg5E=; b=WVl50A4KxelbLyj5pZ+I9SDtXuft4AXRzBGf0TpHNTf6r2e3jIgkyjeU lar5/idNsayIZcA8Hth35U/5g3rmkuJMLWDkW6r6Tbrl/8xgyBNJ/83Tw o8TFl7Fm34DY2luoL+Vv4M7nlgFuwk38MAY3+eHg17mVSlVuY2WMCRjun c4MCt1kOFjRakds6/YZ8MhfHVsRxbrJoW4sNhi/y/tTHf3IGRw30HVD0v +YBZnsWKBs4tM95CvrXbpgf9qpQOZePwhp877a9o2ch1RcGxc7g2PXaAy HwTX4SddUe4Un+84E/9nml8gqacFIp1N/ndiF2cHeSR2KVtXTmI5VivBK A==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: r/T05TFlSUyJMShU9nNjkw== X-CSE-MsgGUID: efOu1N8CRJKlmiaJ9+0AXA== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6800,10657,11474"; a="64149176" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.16,264,1744095600"; d="scan'208";a="64149176" Received: from fmviesa002.fm.intel.com ([10.60.135.142]) by orvoesa105.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 24 Jun 2025 23:41:45 -0700 X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: 04EyyZ8GQG+zDsxpDI2eYQ== X-CSE-MsgGUID: xksZvrIrTn+FolWKwu20mw== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.16,264,1744095600"; d="scan'208";a="175777901" Received: from black.fi.intel.com ([10.237.72.28]) by fmviesa002.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 24 Jun 2025 23:41:42 -0700 Received: by black.fi.intel.com (Postfix, from userid 1001) id A7934138; Wed, 25 Jun 2025 09:41:40 +0300 (EEST) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2025 09:41:40 +0300 From: Mika Westerberg To: zhangjianrong Cc: michael.jamet@intel.com, YehezkelShB@gmail.com, andrew+netdev@lunn.ch, davem@davemloft.net, edumazet@google.com, kuba@kernel.org, pabeni@redhat.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, guhengsheng@hisilicon.com, caiyadong@huawei.com, xuetao09@huawei.com, lixinghang1@huawei.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] [net] net: thunderbolt: Use correct request type in login/logout request packets Message-ID: <20250625064140.GF2824380@black.fi.intel.com> References: <20250625063048.1602018-1-zhangjianrong5@huawei.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=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20250625063048.1602018-1-zhangjianrong5@huawei.com> On Wed, Jun 25, 2025 at 02:30:48PM +0800, zhangjianrong wrote: > It doesn't make sense to use TB_CFG_PKG_XDOMAIN_RESP as the request > type of xdomain request packets. Same here as with previous. It is RESP on purpose. Did you try this patch?