diff mbox series

[net-next,15/17] net/mlx5e: Update check for merged eswitch device

Message ID 20190301200848.9534-16-saeedm@mellanox.com
State Accepted
Delegated to: David Miller
Headers show
Series [net-next,01/17] net/mlx5e: Declare mlx5e_tx_reporter_recover_from_ctx as static | expand

Commit Message

Saeed Mahameed March 1, 2019, 8:08 p.m. UTC 
From: Roi Dayan <roid@mellanox.com>

The current check only validates if both netdevs use the same ops
which means both are vf reps or both uplink reps.

Unlike the case where the two uplinks are bonded (VF LAG), under
multipath scheme the switchdev parent id is not unified between the
uplink reps (and all the associated vf reps). However, we still want
to duplicate in the driver encap flows, adjust the merged eswitch
check for that matter.

Signed-off-by: Roi Dayan <roid@mellanox.com>
Reviewed-by: Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@mellanox.com>
Signed-off-by: Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@mellanox.com>
---
 drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_tc.c | 7 +++----
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_tc.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_tc.c
index c44cb5083d55..850cf6ecb4d7 100644
--- a/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_tc.c
+++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_tc.c
@@ -2360,10 +2360,9 @@  static bool is_merged_eswitch_dev(struct mlx5e_priv *priv,
 	peer_priv = netdev_priv(peer_netdev);
 
 	return (MLX5_CAP_ESW(priv->mdev, merged_eswitch) &&
-		(priv->netdev->netdev_ops == peer_netdev->netdev_ops) &&
-		same_hw_devs(priv, peer_priv) &&
-		MLX5_VPORT_MANAGER(peer_priv->mdev) &&
-		(peer_priv->mdev->priv.eswitch->mode == SRIOV_OFFLOADS));
+		mlx5e_eswitch_rep(priv->netdev) &&
+		mlx5e_eswitch_rep(peer_netdev) &&
+		same_hw_devs(priv, peer_priv));
 }