> -----Original Message----- > From: Intel-wired-lan <[email protected]> On Behalf Of > Michal Swiatkowski > Sent: Friday, October 11, 2024 12:33 PM > To: [email protected] > Cc: [email protected]; Szycik, Marcin <[email protected]>; > Kitszel, Przemyslaw <[email protected]> > Subject: [Intel-wired-lan] [iwl-next v1] ice: add recipe priority check in > search > > The new recipe should be added even if exactly the same recipe already > exists with different priority. > > Example use case is when the rule is being added from TC tool context. > It should has the highest priority, but if the recipe already exists the rule > will > inherit it priority. It can lead to the situation when the rule added from TC > tool has lower priority than expected. > > The solution is to check the recipe priority when trying to find existing one. > > Previous recipe is still useful. Example: > RID 8 -> priority 4 > RID 10 -> priority 7 > > The difference is only in priority rest is let's say eth + mac + direction. > > Adding ARP + MAC_A + RX on RID 8, forward to VF0_VSI After that IP + > MAC_B + RX on RID 10 (from TC tool), forward to PF0 > > Both will work. > > In case of adding ARP + MAC_A + RX on RID 8, forward to VF0_VSI ARP + > MAC_A + RX on RID 10, forward to PF0. > > Only second one will match, but this is expected. > > Reviewed-by: Marcin Szycik <[email protected]> > Reviewed-by: Przemek Kitszel <[email protected]> > Signed-off-by: Michal Swiatkowski <[email protected]> > --- > drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_switch.c | 3 ++- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >
Hi, System hang is observed when creating the VFs in Switchdev mode with the latest next-queue kernel. Need to powercycle the server to recover the system. This issue is blocking the validation of this patch. Thanks, Sujai B
