From 68931c7dd71efd9be19f0b5777f2c6e78a9f1185 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Roi Dayan Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2019 09:41:43 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] 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 Reviewed-by: Or Gerlitz Signed-off-by: Saeed Mahameed --- drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_tc.c | 7 +++---- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_tc.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_tc.c index c44cb50..850cf6e 100644 --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_tc.c +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_tc.c @@ -2360,10 +2360,9 @@ static bool is_merged_eswitch_dev(struct mlx5e_priv *priv, peer_priv = netdev_priv(peer_netdev); return (MLX5_CAP_ESW(priv->mdev, merged_eswitch) && - (priv->netdev->netdev_ops == peer_netdev->netdev_ops) && - same_hw_devs(priv, peer_priv) && - MLX5_VPORT_MANAGER(peer_priv->mdev) && - (peer_priv->mdev->priv.eswitch->mode == SRIOV_OFFLOADS)); + mlx5e_eswitch_rep(priv->netdev) && + mlx5e_eswitch_rep(peer_netdev) && + same_hw_devs(priv, peer_priv)); } -- 2.7.4