Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] net/mlx5: separate generic tunnel TSO from the standard one

["Nélio Laranjeiro" <nelio.laranjeiro@6wind.com>]

On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 11:23:22AM +0000, Shahaf Shuler wrote:
> Monday, June 25, 2018 9:41 AM , Nélio Laranjeiro:
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH] net/mlx5: separate generic tunnel TSO from the
> > standard one
> > 
> > On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 09:22:26AM +0300, Shahaf Shuler wrote:
> > > The generic tunnel TSO was depended in the regular one capabilities to
> > > be enabled.
> > >
> > > Cc: stable@dpdk.org
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Shahaf Shuler <shahafs@mellanox.com>
> > > Acked-by: Yongseok Koh <yskoh@mellanox.com>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_txq.c | 13 +++++++++----
> > >  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > >
> 
> [...]
> 
> > > -	txq_ctrl->txq.tunnel_en = config->tunnel_en;
> > > +	txq_ctrl->txq.tunnel_en = config->tunnel_en | config->swp;
> > >  	txq_ctrl->txq.swp_en = ((DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_IP_TNL_TSO |
> > >  				 DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_UDP_TNL_TSO |
> > >  				 DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_OUTER_IPV4_CKSUM) &
> > > --
> > > 2.12.0
> > >
> > 
> > Is not it a fix?
> 
> Well, more like optimization. To be less strict on when to enable the
> generic tunnel TSO.
> I can rephrase the title if you insist. 

I was asking due to the CC'ed stable, which is generally used when the
it is a fix.  I don't know how the stable maintainers trigger such
patch, that why I am asking.

I am not insisting in any thing here.

By the way: 
Acked-by: Nelio Laranjeiro <nelio.laranjeiro@6wind.com>

-- 
Nélio Laranjeiro
6WIND