On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 01:41:31PM -0700, Michael Chan wrote:
> 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.
True, but I'm not sure that tc_cls_common_offload is used in all cases.
Take red_offload() as one of those.
