[dpdk-stable] [PATCH] net/sfc: cut non VLAN ID bits from TCI

[Andrew Rybchenko]

On 26.07.2018 12:46, Luca Boccassi wrote:
> On Thu, 2018-07-26 at 12:42 +0300, Andrew Rybchenko wrote:
>> On 23.07.2018 20:10, Luca Boccassi wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2018-07-11 at 10:46 +0100, Andrew Rybchenko wrote:
>>>> TCI may contain PCP or DEI bits. Matching of these bits is not
>>>> supported, but the bits still may be set in specification value
>>>> and
>>>> not covered by mask. So, these bits should be ignored.
>>>>
>>>> Fixes: 894080975e1e ("net/sfc: support VLAN in flow API filters")
>>>> Cc: stable at dpdk.org
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Andrew Rybchenko <arybchenko at solarflare.com>
>>>> Reviewed-by: Roman Zhukov <roman.zhukov at oktetlabs.ru>
>>>> ---
>>>>    drivers/net/sfc/sfc_flow.c | 3 ++-
>>>>    1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/sfc/sfc_flow.c
>>>> b/drivers/net/sfc/sfc_flow.c
>>>> index 5613d59a9..18387415e 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/net/sfc/sfc_flow.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/net/sfc/sfc_flow.c
>>>> @@ -371,7 +371,8 @@ sfc_flow_parse_vlan(const struct
>>>> rte_flow_item
>>>> *item,
>>>>    	 * the outer tag and the next matches the inner tag.
>>>>    	 */
>>>>    	if (mask->tci == supp_mask.tci) {
>>>> -		vid = rte_bswap16(spec->tci);
>>>> +		/* Apply mask to keep VID only */
>>>> +		vid = rte_bswap16(spec->tci & mask->tci);
>>>>    
>>>>    		if (!(efx_spec->efs_match_flags &
>>>>    		      EFX_FILTER_MATCH_OUTER_VID)) {
>>> Hi Andrew,
>>>
>>> For which stable release branch is this patch intended? Has it (or
>>> an
>>> equivalent) been merged into mainline?
>> Hi Luka,
>>
>> Yes, the patch is applied in mainline [1].
>>
>> It would be good if it is applied to 17.11, 18.02 and 18.05 stable
>> branches.
>>
>> [1]
>> https://git.dpdk.org/dpdk/commit/?id=8028142107a858a146bfdbaa010b7e77
>> ff987342
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Andrew.
> Ok, thanks, in the future please use --subject-prefix='PATCH xx.yy'
> with git send-email to indicate the target branch(es)

Sorry, but I'm not sure that I understand. It was a fix to mainline
which should be applied to stable branches as well.
As I understand PATCH xx.yy is applicable only when it is a dedicated
patch to stable release. Am I missing something?

Andrew.