Re: [PATCH] net: octeontx2-pf: drop the TC mark reference when adding a flow fails

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On Tue, 03 Nov 2026 10:05:36 +0000, Wentao Liang wrote:
> otx2_tc_parse_actions() increments flow_cfg->mark_flows when it finds a
> FLOW_ACTION_MARK action. The reference is meant to be dropped again by
> otx2_tc_del_flow() when the flow is removed, so a flow that fails to
> install after its actions were parsed leaks it: the checks for the MCAM
> entry, the insertion into the flow list, the mailbox allocation and the
> mailbox reply all free the new flow node without touching the counter.
> The same happens when parsing the actions itself fails after the mark
> action was processed.
> 
> Release the reference on the error paths of otx2_tc_add_flow(), using
> the match id of the parsed request to tell whether it was taken.
> 
> Fixes: 6a57f091622a ("octeontx2-pf: Add support for offload tc with skbedit mark action")
> Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Assisted-by: DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash and OpenAI Codex
> Signed-off-by: Wentao Liang <vulab@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/octeontx2/nic/otx2_tc.c | 10 ++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
> 



Multiple things here:
1. Your team ignored completely previous feedback. Multiple times.

2. You use multiple identities with this email address, thus I doubt that we
   speak with an actual person.

3. Your bot does not even bother running checkpatch, right?

4. Nothing of this was reproduced nor tested.

5. Finally, the same feedback:
You sent multiple independent patches, to multiple independent
subsystems. The amount of these patches clearly suggest this was
AI generated and most likely not tested.

More importantly, you sent all this work without properly organizing
relevant patches into patchsets. This makes reviewing difficult
and might cause multiple reviewers to address the same issue.
Replying to the entire set is impossible and requires handling each
patch independently, instead of applying or discarding the set.
Maintainers also won't see the bigger picture of your work. Quite
worrying.

This is on the verge of hostile patch: bomb us with so many
contributions, we won't be able to handle them in efficient manner,
like responding ONCE to ask you to slow down.  Considering all this
is untested and LLM generated, I have even more doubts whether this
should be considered for review.

Please read kernel documentation BEFORE posting more work. It will
explain you how to identify subsystems, how to organize your work per
subsystem (so a patchset grouping multiple patches with a short cover
letter), how to document the issue discovery method and what was
or was not tested.

Best regards,
Krzysztof