Re: [PATCH v12 net-next 6/9] octeontx2: cn20k: Coordinate default rules with NIX LF lifecycle

[Ratheesh Kannoth]

On 2026-05-08 at 09:19:09, Ratheesh Kannoth (rkannoth@xxxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
> Add NIX_LF_DONT_FREE_DFT_IDXS so the PF can send NIX LF free during hw
> reinit or teardown without the AF freeing CN20K default NPC rule indexes
> while the driver still owns that state (otx2_init_hw_resources and
> otx2_free_hw_resources).

pw-bot: changes-requested

>> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/octeontx2/af/rvu_npc.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/octeontx2/af/rvu_npc.c
>> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/octeontx2/af/rvu_npc.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/octeontx2/af/rvu_npc.c
>> @@ -990,7 +990,7 @@ void rvu_npc_install_allmulti_entry(struct rvu *rvu, u16 pcifunc, int nixlf,
>>  	u16 vf_func;
>>
>>  	/* Only CGX PF/VF can add allmulticast entry */
>> -	if (is_lbk_vf(rvu, pcifunc) && is_sdp_vf(rvu, pcifunc))
>> +	if (is_lbk_vf(rvu, pcifunc) || is_sdp_vf(rvu, pcifunc))
>Is this logic change intended to be part of this commit?
>The commit message focuses on coordinating default rules with the NIX LF
>lifecycle, but this silently changes the condition from a logical AND to a
>logical OR. While this appears to correctly fix a bug where the condition
>could never be true (since a device cannot simultaneously be both an LBK VF
>and an SDP VF), including an undocumented bug fix in a patch about a
>different topic obscures the commit's intent.
>Should this be split into a separate patch, or explicitly mentioned in the
>commit message?

ACK. This is a fix, i will post as seperate patch after this net-next series merged.