On 1/28/26 3:17 PM, Eelco Chaudron wrote:
> Previously, dpif_offload_set_config() was skipped if the dpif
> provider did not implement the corresponding class function.
> This was incorrect: the offload configuration function should be
> called regardless of whether the dpif-provider-specific function
> exists.
>
> Fixes: bd6543466dc6 ("dpif-offload: Add offload provider set_config API.")
> Signed-off-by: Eelco Chaudron <[email protected]>
> ---
> lib/dpif.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/lib/dpif.c b/lib/dpif.c
> index 88b5edfad5..cab5884254 100644
> --- a/lib/dpif.c
> +++ b/lib/dpif.c
> @@ -1609,8 +1609,8 @@ dpif_set_config(struct dpif *dpif, const struct smap
> *cfg)
> if (error) {
> log_operation(dpif, "set_config", error);
> }
> - dpif_offload_set_config(dpif, cfg);
> }
> + dpif_offload_set_config(dpif, cfg);
>
> return error;
> }
The change looks good to me, but should we maybe add a test for this?
I assume, this breaks skip_hw configuration. Is it possible to have
a test that offloads some flows to tc and then check that those tc
flows carry the skip_hw flag?
Best regards, Ilya Maximets.
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
