On Mon, 01 Apr 2019 18:03:00 -0700 (PDT), David Miller wrote:
> From: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicin...@netronome.com>
> Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2019 19:04:42 -0700
> 
> > This patch clears up some confusion around the meaning of bit 12
> > for FW messages related to VLAN and flower offload.
> > 
> > Pieter says:
> > It fixes issues with matching, pushing and popping vlan tags.
> > We replace the vlan CFI bit with a vlan present bit that
> > indicates the presence of a vlan tag. We also no longer set
> > the CFI when pushing vlan tags.  
> 
> Series applied, thanks Jakub.
> 
> Stable?

It would be nice, but they will both conflict with Pablo's changes :(
Especially patch 1 is quite different since Pablo merged key and mask
handling into one function.  The old patch would have been:

@@ -65,15 +64,13 @@ nfp_flower_compile_meta_tci(struct nfp_flower_meta_tci 
*frame,
                flow_vlan = skb_flow_dissector_target(flow->dissector,
                                                      FLOW_DISSECTOR_KEY_VLAN,
                                                      target);
                /* Populate the tci field. */
+               tmp_tci = NFP_FLOWER_MASK_VLAN_PRESENT;
-               if (flow_vlan->vlan_id || flow_vlan->vlan_priority) {
-                       tmp_tci = FIELD_PREP(NFP_FLOWER_MASK_VLAN_PRIO,
-                                            flow_vlan->vlan_priority) |
-                                 FIELD_PREP(NFP_FLOWER_MASK_VLAN_VID,
-                                            flow_vlan->vlan_id) |
-                                 NFP_FLOWER_MASK_VLAN_CFI;
-                       frame->tci = cpu_to_be16(tmp_tci);
-               }
+               tmp_tci |= FIELD_PREP(NFP_FLOWER_MASK_VLAN_PRIO,
+                                     flow_vlan->vlan_priority) |
+                          FIELD_PREP(NFP_FLOWER_MASK_VLAN_VID,
+                                     flow_vlan->vlan_id);
+               frame->tci = cpu_to_be16(tmp_tci);
        }
 }

Second conflict is just an irrelevant change in context.  How would we
handle this?

Reply via email to