On 25/11/2024 07:11, Gal Pressman wrote: > On 13/11/2024 14:13, [email protected] wrote: >> Ethtool ntuple filters with FLOW_RSS were originally defined as adding >> the base queue ID (ring_cookie) to the value from the indirection table, >> so that the same table could distribute over more than one set of queues >> when used by different filters. > > TBH, I'm not sure I understand the difference? Perhaps you can share an > example?
Something like this: ethtool -X $intf context new equal 2 # creates context ID 1, table filled with 0s and 1s ethtool -N $intf <match fields...> context 1 # filter distributes traffic to queues 0 and 1 ethtool -N $intf <match fields...> context 1 action 2 # filter distributes traffic to queues 2 and 3 See the selftest in patch 4 for a concrete example of this. Some NICs were apparently sending the traffic from both filters to queues 0 and 1, and ignoring the 'action 2' on the second filter. >> @@ -992,6 +992,11 @@ static noinline_for_stack int ethtool_set_rxnfc(struct >> net_device *dev, >> if (rc) >> return rc; >> >> + /* Nonzero ring with RSS only makes sense if NIC adds them together */ >> + if (info.flow_type & FLOW_RSS && !ops->cap_rss_rxnfc_adds && >> + ethtool_get_flow_spec_ring(info.fs.ring_cookie)) >> + return -EINVAL; > > I believe this check shouldn't happen when we do ETHTOOL_SRXCLSRLDEL as > flow_type is garbage, WDYT? Agreed; this check should only apply to ETHTOOL_SRXCLSRLINS. Do you want to send the fix or shall I? Also, the check below it, dealing with sym-xor, looks like it's only relevant to ETHTOOL_SRXFH, since info.data is garbage for other commands. Ahmed, is my understanding correct there?
