Hi Saeed, On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 12:37:27AM +0000, Saeed Mahameed wrote: > 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. Thanks. > 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 ? No rush on my side. We have to wait for David to tell us if he is fine to apply this patchset into net-next, then pull from your tree the first client for this code in a couple of days as you suggest.
