On Mon, 23 Mar 2020 13:02:16 +0300 Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 21, 2020 at 02:43:08AM +0000, Saeed Mahameed wrote:
> > On Fri, 2020-03-20 at 16:23 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > > The actions_match_supported() function returns a bool, true for
> > > success
> > > and false for failure. This error path is returning a negative which
> > > is cast to true but it should return false.
> > >
> > > Fixes: 4c3844d9e97e ("net/mlx5e: CT: Introduce connection tracking")
> > > Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_tc.c | 2 +-
> > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_tc.c
> > > b/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_tc.c
> > > index 044891a03be3..e5de7d2bac2b 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_tc.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_tc.c
> > > @@ -3058,7 +3058,7 @@ static bool actions_match_supported(struct
> > > mlx5e_priv *priv,
> > > */
> > > NL_SET_ERR_MSG_MOD(extack,
> > > "Can't offload mirroring
> > > with action ct");
> > > - return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > > + return false;
> > > }
> > > } else {
> > > actions = flow->nic_attr->action;
> >
> > applied to net-next-mlx5
>
> I can never figure out which tree these are supposed to be applied to.
> :( Is there a trick to it?
Not as far as I know :/ Upstream maintainers usually know which
sub-maintainers like to take patches into their own tree first.
Tagging things as "net-next" is perfectly fine in this case.
We could ask all maintainers who want to funnel patches via their own
trees to add T: entries in MAINTAINERS, but I'm not sure how practical
that is.
