On 4/25/2021 6:07 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
Dim 25 avr 2021, à 19:01, Gregory Etelson a écrit :
Hello Thomas,
Dim 25 avr 2021, à 17:57, Gregory Etelson a écrit :
Tunnel offload API requires application to query PMD for specific flow
items and actions. Application uses these PMD specific elements to
build flow rules according to the tunnel offload model.
The model does not restrict private elements location in a flow rule,
but the current MLX5 PMD implementation expects that tunnel offload
rule will begin with PMD specific elements.
The patch removes that placement limitation in MLX5 PMD.
Cc: sta...@dpdk.org
Fixes: 4ec6360de37d ("net/mlx5: implement tunnel offload")
Cc: stable must be just after the Fixes line.
There is a testpmd patch in the same series, is it OK to be merged in mlx
tree?
The tunnel offload model can be complicated.
The testpmd patch that comes with this one emphasizes how application
can construct a flow rule without placement restrictions.
I think that both patches should be merged.
That's not the question.
One patch should be merged in mlx tree, while the other one should target
next-net.
In such a situation, quite often we split in different series.
For this case, it's up to Raslan and Ferruh to agree on how to proceed.
I am OK to get both to next-net, as long as driver patch is Ack'ed.
It seems there is a relation between driver and testpmd patch, but I am trying
to figure out how tightly they are coupled, which may be sign of something wrong.
