On Thu, Oct 08, 2026 at 02:22:43PM -0700, Erni Sri Satya Vennela wrote: > On Tue, Oct 06, 2026 at 01:59:05PM -0700, Kameron Carr wrote: > > On 10/2/2026 12:38 PM, Haiyang Zhang wrote: > > > > I am continuing investigation of synthetic fallback with an > independently programmed MANA VF and rejected-replacement restoration. > > Regards, > Vennela > > Tested-by: Erni Sri Satya Vennela <[email protected]>
I tested an arriving VF with its own XDP program while netvsc already had a different program attached. On both MANA and mlx5, netvsc refused to join the VF and preserved both programs without overwriting the VF's program. With the unjoined VF independently brought UP, VF received traffic directly through it. Both drivers supported independent reception before this series and are unchanged by these patches. Ownership protection therefore passed on both, but refusal to join does not establish synthetic-only delivery for an independently UP VF. The commit message in [PATCH 3/5] says traffic stays on the synthetic path after refusal; does that assume the rejected VF remains down, or should it also hold when the VF is independently brought UP? - Vennela
