From patchwork Fri Mar 1 20:08:46 2019 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: Saeed Mahameed X-Patchwork-Id: 1050438 X-Patchwork-Delegate: davem@davemloft.net Return-Path: X-Original-To: patchwork-incoming-netdev@ozlabs.org Delivered-To: patchwork-incoming-netdev@ozlabs.org Authentication-Results: ozlabs.org; spf=none (mailfrom) smtp.mailfrom=vger.kernel.org (client-ip=209.132.180.67; helo=vger.kernel.org; envelope-from=netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org; receiver=) Authentication-Results: ozlabs.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=mellanox.com Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44B0rh16Zcz9s6w for ; Sat, 2 Mar 2019 07:09:56 +1100 (AEDT) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727340AbfCAUJz (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Mar 2019 15:09:55 -0500 Received: from mail-il-dmz.mellanox.com ([193.47.165.129]:45601 "EHLO mellanox.co.il" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727195AbfCAUJx (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Mar 2019 15:09:53 -0500 Received: from Internal Mail-Server by MTLPINE1 (envelope-from saeedm@mellanox.com) with ESMTPS (AES256-SHA encrypted); 1 Mar 2019 22:09:49 +0200 Received: from sx1.mtl.com ([172.16.5.27]) by labmailer.mlnx (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id x21K9DLT019375; Fri, 1 Mar 2019 22:09:47 +0200 From: Saeed Mahameed To: "David S. Miller" Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, Roi Dayan , Or Gerlitz , Saeed Mahameed Subject: [net-next 15/17] net/mlx5e: Update check for merged eswitch device Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2019 12:08:46 -0800 Message-Id: <20190301200848.9534-16-saeedm@mellanox.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.20.1 In-Reply-To: <20190301200848.9534-1-saeedm@mellanox.com> References: <20190301200848.9534-1-saeedm@mellanox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org From: Roi Dayan 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 Reviewed-by: Or Gerlitz Signed-off-by: Saeed Mahameed --- drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_tc.c | 7 +++---- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) 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)); }