Re: [PATCH net-next 7/7] sfc: offload left-hand side rules for conntrack

[Edward Cree <ecree.xilinx@gmail.com>]

On 04/08/2023 14:43, Simon Horman wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 03, 2023 at 12:56:23PM +0100, edward.cree@amd.com wrote:
> 
> ...
> 
>> +static bool efx_tc_rule_is_lhs_rule(struct flow_rule *fr,
>> +				    struct efx_tc_match *match)
>> +{
>> +	const struct flow_action_entry *fa;
>> +	int i;
>> +
>> +	flow_action_for_each(i, fa, &fr->action) {
>> +		switch (fa->id) {
>> +		case FLOW_ACTION_GOTO:
>> +			return true;
>> +		case FLOW_ACTION_CT:
>> +			/* If rule is -trk, or doesn't mention trk at all, then
>> +			 * a CT action implies a conntrack lookup (hence it's an
>> +			 * LHS rule).  If rule is +trk, then a CT action could
>> +			 * just be ct(nat) or even ct(commit) (though the latter
>> +			 * can't be offloaded).
>> +			 */
>> +			if (!match->mask.ct_state_trk || !match->value.ct_state_trk)
>> +				return true;
> 
> Hi Ed,
> 
> I think that to keep static analysers happy there ought to be a
> break statement, or a fallthrough annotation here.

Yeah, I see on patchwork that clang complained about this.
Since the fallthrough is only into a break statement (which is
 presumably why gcc doesn't mind), I'll just add a break here.

> Otherwise the series looks good to me.

Thanks, will respin v2 shortly with your tag included.