On Mon, 21 Sept 2026 at 10:32, Raslan Darawsheh <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi David, > > 🤖 This review was drafted with assistance from Claude (Anthropic) and > reviewed by me before posting. > > No functional concerns with this patch in isolation. Flagging for context > going into the rest of the series: by the end of it, the fixed > MLX5_MAX_MAC_ADDRESSES / MLX5_MAX_UC_MAC_ADDRESSES bound is replaced by a > device-reported dynamic limit, but mlx5_flow_hw.c's HWS control-flow paths > are never updated to match it (see my reply on patch 5/5, > "net/mlx5: accept more unicast MAC addresses").
While I understand the comment on the last patch, this comment here seems gratuitous.. ? I don't get what I should change at this point of the series. -- David Marchand
