diff mbox series

[net-next,05/13] ice: add recipe priority check in search

Message ID 20250108221753.2055987-6-anthony.l.nguyen@intel.com (mailing list archive)
State New
Delegated to: Netdev Maintainers
Headers show
Series Intel Wired LAN Driver Updates 2025-01-08 (ice) | expand

Checks

Context Check Description
netdev/series_format success Posting correctly formatted
netdev/tree_selection success Clearly marked for net-next
netdev/ynl success Generated files up to date; no warnings/errors; no diff in generated;
netdev/fixes_present success Fixes tag not required for -next series
netdev/header_inline success No static functions without inline keyword in header files
netdev/build_32bit success Errors and warnings before: 1 this patch: 1
netdev/build_tools success No tools touched, skip
netdev/cc_maintainers success CCed 5 of 5 maintainers
netdev/build_clang success Errors and warnings before: 2 this patch: 2
netdev/verify_signedoff success Signed-off-by tag matches author and committer
netdev/deprecated_api success None detected
netdev/check_selftest success No net selftest shell script
netdev/verify_fixes success No Fixes tag
netdev/build_allmodconfig_warn success Errors and warnings before: 1 this patch: 1
netdev/checkpatch success total: 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 checks, 9 lines checked
netdev/build_clang_rust success No Rust files in patch. Skipping build
netdev/kdoc success Errors and warnings before: 117 this patch: 117
netdev/source_inline success Was 0 now: 0
netdev/contest fail net-next-2025-01-09--00-00 (tests: 883)

Commit Message

Tony Nguyen Jan. 8, 2025, 10:17 p.m. UTC 
From: Michal Swiatkowski <michal.swiatkowski@linux.intel.com>

The new recipe should be added even if exactly the same recipe already
exists with different priority.

Example use case is when the rule is being added from TC tool context.
It should has the highest priority, but if the recipe already exists
the rule will inherit it priority. It can lead to the situation when
the rule added from TC tool has lower priority than expected.

The solution is to check the recipe priority when trying to find
existing one.

Previous recipe is still useful. Example:
RID 8 -> priority 4
RID 10 -> priority 7

The difference is only in priority rest is let's say eth + mac +
direction.

Adding ARP + MAC_A + RX on RID 8, forward to VF0_VSI
After that IP + MAC_B + RX on RID 10 (from TC tool), forward to PF0

Both will work.

In case of adding ARP + MAC_A + RX on RID 8, forward to VF0_VSI
ARP + MAC_A + RX on RID 10, forward to PF0.

Only second one will match, but this is expected.

Reviewed-by: Marcin Szycik <marcin.szycik@linux.intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Przemek Kitszel <przemyslaw.kitszel@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Michal Swiatkowski <michal.swiatkowski@linux.intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Simon Horman <horms@kernel.org>
Tested-by: Sujai Buvaneswaran <sujai.buvaneswaran@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Tony Nguyen <anthony.l.nguyen@intel.com>
---
 drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_switch.c | 3 ++-
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_switch.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_switch.c
index 0e740342e294..4a91e0aaf0a5 100644
--- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_switch.c
+++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_switch.c
@@ -4784,7 +4784,8 @@  ice_find_recp(struct ice_hw *hw, struct ice_prot_lkup_ext *lkup_exts,
 			 */
 			if (found && recp[i].tun_type == rinfo->tun_type &&
 			    recp[i].need_pass_l2 == rinfo->need_pass_l2 &&
-			    recp[i].allow_pass_l2 == rinfo->allow_pass_l2)
+			    recp[i].allow_pass_l2 == rinfo->allow_pass_l2 &&
+			    recp[i].priority == rinfo->priority)
 				return i; /* Return the recipe ID */
 		}
 	}