On April 8, 2024 9:09 PM, Asbjørn wrote:
This helper can be used by drivers to check for the presence of unsupportedHi Asbjørn, thanks for your work, it makes sense for driver check. Will it better to name flags as "ctrl_flags" to make it more clear since it indicates the ctrl_flags in rule and you name it as control.flags in the following print message.
control flags.
It mirrors the existing check done in sfc:
drivers/net/ethernet/sfc/tc.c +276
This is aimed at drivers, which implements some control flags.
This should also be used by drivers that implement all current flags, so that
future flags will be unsupported by default.
Only compile-tested.
Signed-off-by: Asbjørn Sloth Tønnesen <ast@xxxxxxxxxxx>
---
include/net/flow_offload.h | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 22 insertions(+)
diff --git a/include/net/flow_offload.h b/include/net/flow_offload.h index
314087a5e1818..c1317b14da08c 100644
--- a/include/net/flow_offload.h
+++ b/include/net/flow_offload.h
@@ -449,6 +449,28 @@ static inline bool flow_rule_match_key(const struct
flow_rule *rule,
return dissector_uses_key(rule->match.dissector, key); }
+/**
+ * flow_rule_no_unsupp_control_flags() - check for unsupported control
+flags
+ * @supp_flags: flags supported by driver
+ * @flags: flags present in rule
+ * @extack: The netlink extended ACK for reporting errors.
+ *
+ * Returns true if only supported control flags are set, false otherwise.
+ */
+static inline bool flow_rule_no_unsupp_control_flags(const u32 supp_flags,
+ const u32 flags,
+
struct
+netlink_ext_ack *extack) {This should not be included in this patch.
+ if (likely((flags & ~supp_flags) == 0))
+ return true;
+
+ NL_SET_ERR_MSG_FMT_MOD(extack,
+ "Unsupported match on control.flags %#x",
+ flags);
+
+ return false;
+}
+
struct flow_stats {
u64 pkts;
u64 bytes;
--