On 29 Jan 2026, at 19:20, Ilya Maximets wrote:
> 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?
Good idea. I was thinking that I wouldn’t be able to do a proper test without
actual HW, but for this specific case, I can add one.
I’ll send out a v2 with a test.
//Elco
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
