On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 3:27 PM Saeed Mahameed <sae...@mellanox.com> wrote: > @@ -939,8 +939,8 @@ mlx5e_tc_add_fdb_flow(struct mlx5e_priv *priv, > } > out_priv = netdev_priv(encap_dev); > rpriv = out_priv->ppriv; > - attr->out_rep[attr->out_count] = rpriv->rep; > - attr->out_mdev[attr->out_count++] = out_priv->mdev; > + attr->dests[attr->out_count].rep = rpriv->rep; > + attr->dests[attr->out_count++].mdev = out_priv->mdev; > } > > err = mlx5_eswitch_add_vlan_action(esw, attr); > @@ -2468,8 +2468,9 @@ static int parse_tc_fdb_actions(struct mlx5e_priv > *priv, struct tcf_exts *exts, > MLX5_FLOW_CONTEXT_ACTION_COUNT; > out_priv = netdev_priv(out_dev); > rpriv = out_priv->ppriv; > - attr->out_rep[attr->out_count] = rpriv->rep; > - attr->out_mdev[attr->out_count++] = > out_priv->mdev; > + attr->dests[attr->out_count].rep = rpriv->rep; > + attr->dests[attr->out_count].mdev = > out_priv->mdev; > + attr->out_count++;
It would be nicer if you can use either of these two patterns consistently. Either a[i++] = j; or a[i] = j; i++; The latter is slightly more readable for me, but I don't have any preference. Thanks.
