On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 1:31 PM, Andy Gospodarek
<andrew.gospoda...@broadcom.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 11:43:14AM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 Apr 2018 11:50:14 -0400, Michael Chan wrote:
>> > @@ -764,6 +788,41 @@ static bool bnxt_tc_can_offload(struct bnxt *bp,
>> > struct bnxt_tc_flow *flow)
>> > return false;
>> > }
>> >
>> > + /* Currently source/dest MAC cannot be partial wildcard */
>> > + if (bits_set(&flow->l2_key.smac, sizeof(flow->l2_key.smac)) &&
>> > + !is_exactmatch(flow->l2_mask.smac, sizeof(flow->l2_mask.smac))) {
>> > + netdev_info(bp->dev, "Wildcard match unsupported for Source
>> > MAC\n");
>>
>> This wouldn't be something to do in net, but how do you feel about
>> using extack for messages like this?
>>
>
> I agree 'net' would not have been the place for a change like that, but
> I do think that would be a good idea. It looks like we could easily
> change the ndo_setup_tc to something like this:
>
> int (*ndo_setup_tc)(struct net_device *dev,
> enum tc_setup_type type,
> void *type_data,
> struct netlink_ext_ack
> *extack);
I think the extack pointer is already in the tc_cls_common_offload
struct inside tc_cls_flower_offload struct.
