On Tue, 2019-11-12 at 00:34 +0100, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: > From: Paul Blakey <paulb@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Since both tc rules and flow table rules are of the same format, > we can re-use tc parsing for that, and move the flow table rules > to their steering domain - In this case, the next chain after > max tc chain. > > Issue: 1929510 > Change-Id: I68bf14d5398b91cf26cc7c7f19dab64ba8757c01 > Signed-off-by: Paul Blakey <paulb@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > Reviewed-by: Mark Bloch <markb@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > Acked-by: Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Series LGTM, couple of things: 1) Paul should have removed Issue and change-Id tags I can do this myself when i apply those to my trees. 2) patches #1..#6 can perfectly go mlx5-next, already tried and i had to resolve some trivial conflicts, but all good. 3) this patch needs to be on top of net-next, due to dependency with TC_SETUP_FT, I will resubmit it through my normal pull request procedure after applying all other patches in this series to mlx5-next shared branch. All patches will land in net-next in couple of days, i guess there is no rush to have them there immediately ? Thanks, saeed.
