On 5/8/2020 12:58, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Mon, May 04, 2020 at 08:30:09AM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
>> + flow_act->action &=
>> + ~MLX5_FLOW_CONTEXT_ACTION_FWD_NEXT_PRIO;
>> + flow_act->action |= MLX5_FLOW_CONTEXT_ACTION_FWD_DEST;
>> + handle = _mlx5_add_flow_rules(ft, spec, flow_act, dest, num_dest);
>> + if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(handle))
>> + goto unlock;
>
> I never like seeing IS_ERR_OR_NULL()..
>
> In this case I see callers of mlx5_add_flow_rules() that crash if it
> returns NULL, so this can't be right.
>
> Also, I don't see an obvious place where _mlx5_add_flow_rules()
> returns NULL, does it?
It seems you are right. b3638e1a76648 ("net/mlx5_core: Introduce forward to next priority action")
added that code and it seems from the start it was wrong.
Looking at the code it looks like we always use IS_ERR() to check the result
of mlx5_add_flow_rules() except in: mlx5e_tc_add_nic_flow() which should also
be fixed.
Thanks Jason.
>
> Jason
>
Mark
