On 5/23/2020 12:55 AM, Mike Baucom wrote:
> The mark code was too restrictive by disallowing a cfa_code of zero.
> This code loosens the requirement and allows zero.
I can see "if (cfa_code)" check removed, but can you please give some details
that what it the impact of having that check and why change has been done.
Also it is not clear what "cfa code" is, if it has a significance can you please
describe it as well.
>
> Fixes: b87abb2e55cb ("net/bnxt: support marking packet")
>
> Signed-off-by: Mike Baucom <michael.bau...@broadcom.com>
> Reviewed-by: Kishore Padmanabha <kishore.padmana...@broadcom.com>
> ---
> drivers/net/bnxt/bnxt_rxr.c | 20 +++++++++-----------
> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/bnxt/bnxt_rxr.c b/drivers/net/bnxt/bnxt_rxr.c
> index ee1acb1..91ff729 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/bnxt/bnxt_rxr.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/bnxt/bnxt_rxr.c
> @@ -465,17 +465,15 @@ static inline struct rte_mbuf *bnxt_tpa_end(
> break;
> }
>
> - if (cfa_code) {
> - rc = ulp_mark_db_mark_get(bp->ulp_ctx, gfid,
> - cfa_code, &mark_id);
> - if (!rc) {
> - /* Got the mark, write it to the mbuf and return */
> - mbuf->hash.fdir.hi = mark_id;
> - mbuf->udata64 = (cfa_code & 0xffffffffull) << 32;
> - mbuf->hash.fdir.id = rxcmp1->cfa_code;
> - mbuf->ol_flags |= PKT_RX_FDIR | PKT_RX_FDIR_ID;
> - return;
> - }
> + rc = ulp_mark_db_mark_get(bp->ulp_ctx, gfid,
> + cfa_code, &mark_id);
> + if (!rc) {
> + /* Got the mark, write it to the mbuf and return */
> + mbuf->hash.fdir.hi = mark_id;
> + mbuf->udata64 = (cfa_code & 0xffffffffull) << 32;
> + mbuf->hash.fdir.id = rxcmp1->cfa_code;
> + mbuf->ol_flags |= PKT_RX_FDIR | PKT_RX_FDIR_ID;
> + return;
> }
>
> skip_mark:
>
