On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 02:12:01PM +0000, Vladimir Oltean wrote: > On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 05:01:48PM +0300, Ido Schimmel wrote: > > > The patches were split from a larger series for easier review: > > > > This is not what I meant. I specifically suggested to get the TX > > forwarding offload first and then extending the API with an argument to > > opt-in for the replay / cleanup: > > Yeah, ok, I did not get that and I had already reposted by the time you > clarified, sorry. > > Anyway, is it so bad that we cannot look at the patches in the order > that they are in right now (even if this means that maybe a few more > days would pass)? To me it makes a bit more sense anyway to first > consolidate the code that is already in the tree right now, before > adding new logic. And I don't really want to rebase the patches again to > change the ordering and risk a build breakage without a good reason. If you don't want to change the order, then at least make the replay/cleanup optional and set it to 'false' for mlxsw. This should mean that the only change in mlxsw should be adding calls to switchdev_bridge_port_offload() / switchdev_bridge_port_unoffload() in mlxsw_sp_bridge_port_create() / mlxsw_sp_bridge_port_destroy(), respectively.
