Hi David,
On 21/09/2026 1:31 PM, David Marchand wrote:
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.
Fair, that one was unnecessary on its own — the actual comment is on
patch 5/5. Apologies for the noise.
Kindest regards
Raslan Darawsheh
