On Mon, 14 May 2018 22:31:46 -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
> On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 1:47 PM, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner wrote:
> > On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 01:30:53PM -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
> >> On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 1:44 PM, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner wrote:
> >> > Currently, when the rule is not to
On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 1:47 PM, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
wrote:
> On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 01:30:53PM -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
>> On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 1:44 PM, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
>> wrote:
>> > Currently, when the rule is not to be
On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 01:30:53PM -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
> On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 1:44 PM, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
> wrote:
> > Currently, when the rule is not to be exclusively executed by the
> > hardware, extack is not passed along and offloading failures don't
>
From: Cong Wang
Date: Mon, 14 May 2018 13:30:53 -0700
> I fail to understand why you need a flag here, IOW, why not just pass
> extack unconditionally?
It will confuse users, so isn't passed up by default.
On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 1:44 PM, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
wrote:
> Currently, when the rule is not to be exclusively executed by the
> hardware, extack is not passed along and offloading failures don't
> get logged. The idea was that hardware failures are okay because
From: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
Date: Sun, 13 May 2018 17:44:27 -0300
> Currently, when the rule is not to be exclusively executed by the
> hardware, extack is not passed along and offloading failures don't
> get logged. The idea was that hardware failures are okay
Currently, when the rule is not to be exclusively executed by the
hardware, extack is not passed along and offloading failures don't
get logged. The idea was that hardware failures are okay because the
rule will get executed in software then and this way it doesn't confuse
unware users.
But this