Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Sat, 14 Jan 2023 14:49:51 +0100
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To:     dann frazier <dann.frazier@canonical.com>
Cc:     Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        stable@vger.kernel.org, Roi Dayan <roid@nvidia.com>,
        Maor Dickman <maord@nvidia.com>,
        Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@nvidia.com>,
        Ran Drori <rdrori@nvidia.com>,
        Frode Nordahl <frode.nordahl@canonical.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5.15 049/230] net/mlx5e: Check action fwd/drop flag
 exists also for nic flows
Message-ID: <Y8Ky/3oq4HG0pe0x@kroah.com>
References: <20220711090604.055883544@linuxfoundation.org>
 <20220711090605.473699898@linuxfoundation.org>
 <Y8CEv90mCZkmuFAq@xps13.dannf>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Y8CEv90mCZkmuFAq@xps13.dannf>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jan 12, 2023 at 03:07:59PM -0700, dann frazier wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 11:05:05AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > From: Roi Dayan <roid@nvidia.com>
> > 
> > [ Upstream commit 6b50cf45b6a0e99f3cab848a72ecca8da56b7460 ]
> > 
> > The driver should add offloaded rules with either a fwd or drop action.
> > The check existed in parsing fdb flows but not when parsing nic flows.
> > Move the test into actions_match_supported() which is called for
> > checking nic flows and fdb flows.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Roi Dayan <roid@nvidia.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Maor Dickman <maord@nvidia.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@nvidia.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
> 
> hey Sasha,
> 
>   A contact at Nvidia tells me that this has caused a regression w/
> OVN HW offload. To fix that, commit 7f8770c7 ("net/mlx5e: Set action
> fwd flag when parsing tc action goto") is also required.
> 
>  I'm not really sure what flagged this patch for stable, so I don't
> know whether to suggest it be reverted, or that additonal patch be
> applied. Roi - what's your thought?

I've queued up the additional change now, thanks.

greg k-h