Re: [PATCH net-next v2 0/8] Add support for two classes of VCAP rules

[Michael Walle]

Hi Steen,

thanks for adding me on CC :) I was just about to reply on your v1.

Am 2023-01-06 09:53, schrieb Steen Hegelund:
> This adds support for two classes of VCAP rules:
>
> - Permanent rules (added e.g. for PTP support)
> - TC user rules (added by the TC userspace tool)
>
> For this to work the VCAP Loopups must be enabled from boot, so that 
> the
> "internal" clients like PTP can add rules that are always active.
>
> When the TC tool add a flower filter the VCAP rule corresponding to 
> this
> filter will be disabled (kept in memory) until a TC matchall filter 
> creates
> a link from chain 0 to the chain (lookup) where the flower filter was
> added.
>
> When the flower filter is enabled it will be written to the appropriate
> VCAP lookup and become active in HW.
>
> Likewise the flower filter will be disabled if there is no link from 
> chain
> 0 to the chain of the filter (lookup), and when that happens the
> corresponding VCAP rule will be read from the VCAP instance and stored 
> in
> memory until it is deleted or enabled again.

I've just done a very quick smoke test and looked at my lan9668 board
that the following error isn't printed anymore. No functional testing.
  vcap_val_rule:1678: keyset was not updated: -22

And it is indeed gone. But I have a few questions regarding how these
patches are applied. They were first sent for net, but now due to
a remark that they are too invasive they are targeted at net-next.
But they have a Fixes: tag. Won't they be eventually backported to
later kernels in any case? What's the difference between net and
net-next then?

Also patches 3-8 (the one with the fixes tags) don't apply without
patch 1-2 (which don't have fixes tags). IMHO they should be
reordered.

Wouldn't it make more sense, to fix the regression via net (and
a Fixes: tag) and then make that stuff work without tc? Maybe
the fix is just reverting the commits.

-michael