Skip to content

Commit 68931c7

Browse files
roidayanSaeed Mahameed
authored andcommitted
net/mlx5e: Update check for merged eswitch device
The current check only validates if both netdevs use the same ops which means both are vf reps or both uplink reps. Unlike the case where the two uplinks are bonded (VF LAG), under multipath scheme the switchdev parent id is not unified between the uplink reps (and all the associated vf reps). However, we still want to duplicate in the driver encap flows, adjust the merged eswitch check for that matter. Signed-off-by: Roi Dayan <[email protected]> Reviewed-by: Or Gerlitz <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Saeed Mahameed <[email protected]>
1 parent 5fb091e commit 68931c7

File tree

1 file changed

+3
-4
lines changed
  • drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core

1 file changed

+3
-4
lines changed

drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_tc.c

Lines changed: 3 additions & 4 deletions
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -2360,10 +2360,9 @@ static bool is_merged_eswitch_dev(struct mlx5e_priv *priv,
23602360
peer_priv = netdev_priv(peer_netdev);
23612361

23622362
return (MLX5_CAP_ESW(priv->mdev, merged_eswitch) &&
2363-
(priv->netdev->netdev_ops == peer_netdev->netdev_ops) &&
2364-
same_hw_devs(priv, peer_priv) &&
2365-
MLX5_VPORT_MANAGER(peer_priv->mdev) &&
2366-
(peer_priv->mdev->priv.eswitch->mode == SRIOV_OFFLOADS));
2363+
mlx5e_eswitch_rep(priv->netdev) &&
2364+
mlx5e_eswitch_rep(peer_netdev) &&
2365+
same_hw_devs(priv, peer_priv));
23672366
}
23682367

23692368

0 commit comments

Comments
 (0)