Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 07:49:41PM CET, jakub.kicin...@netronome.com wrote: >On Thu, 14 Dec 2017 14:10:45 +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote: >> >Why? Just a namechange? >> > >> > >> >>IIUC the problem is we don't know whether the driver/callee of the new >> >>port is aware of previous callbacks/filters and we can't replay them. >> >> Well, the problem is a bit different. >> There are 2 scenarios when we need to fail here: >> 1) tc offload feature is turned off, there are some filters offloaded in >> the block. That is what I commented above. >> 2) tc offload feature is turned on, there are some filters offloaded in >> the block but the block is not accounted by the driver. This is >> because of the lack or replay. This is taken care of in the beginning >> of __tcf_block_cb_register function - see below, there is a comment >> there. > >Restating in code terms, shouldn't this: > >+ tcf_block_offload_cmd(block, dev, ei, TC_BLOCK_BIND); >+ return 0; > >return the error like this: > > return tcf_block_offload_cmd(block, dev, ei, TC_BLOCK_BIND); > >We expect simple drivers to do this: > > case TC_BLOCK_BIND: > return tcf_block_cb_register(f->block, mycb, > priv, priv); > >Which will return an error for shared offloaded block, just need to >propagate it.
Got it. Will do. Thanks!
