The has_tag member will indicate whether a tag action was specified
in flow specification.
A flow tag 0 = MLX5_FS_DEFAULT_FLOW_TAG is assumed a valid flow tag
that is currently used by mlx5 RDMA driver, whereas in HW flow_tag = 0
means that the user doesn't care about flow_tag. HW always provide
a flow_tag = 0 if all flow tags requested on a specific flow are 0.
So we need a way (in the driver) to differentiate between a user really
requesting flow_tag = 0 and a user who does not care, in order to be
able to report conflicting flow tags on a specific flow.
Signed-off-by: Matan Barak <matanb@mellanox.com>
Reviewed-by: Aviad Yehezkel <aviadye@mellanox.com>
Signed-off-by: Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@mellanox.com>
return -EINVAL;
action->flow_tag = ib_spec->flow_tag.tag_id;
+ action->has_flow_tag = true;
break;
case IB_FLOW_SPEC_ACTION_DROP:
if (FIELDS_NOT_SUPPORTED(ib_spec->drop,
MLX5_FLOW_CONTEXT_ACTION_FWD_NEXT_PRIO;
}
- if (flow_act.flow_tag != MLX5_FS_DEFAULT_FLOW_TAG &&
+ if (flow_act.has_flow_tag &&
(flow_attr->type == IB_FLOW_ATTR_ALL_DEFAULT ||
flow_attr->type == IB_FLOW_ATTR_MC_DEFAULT)) {
mlx5_ib_warn(dev, "Flow tag %u and attribute type %x isn't allowed in leftovers\n",
struct mlx5_flow_destination dest[2] = {};
struct mlx5_flow_act flow_act = {
.action = attr->action,
+ .has_flow_tag = true,
.flow_tag = attr->flow_tag,
.encap_id = 0,
};
return -EEXIST;
}
- if (fte->flow_tag != flow_act->flow_tag) {
+ if (flow_act->has_flow_tag && fte->flow_tag != flow_act->flow_tag) {
mlx5_core_warn(get_dev(&fte->node),
"FTE flow tag %u already exists with different flow tag %u\n",
fte->flow_tag,
struct mlx5_flow_act {
u32 action;
+ bool has_flow_tag;
u32 flow_tag;
u32 encap_id;
u32 modify_id;