# Re: \[PATCH net-next\] net: ethtool: Don't check if RSS context exists in case of context 0

- From: Jakub Kicinski \<kuba@kernel.org\>
- Date: 2025-02-27 15:29:34 
- List: netdev
- Page: https://ratatoskr.run/netdev/2025/02/11320804
- Thread: https://ratatoskr.run/netdev/2025/02/11320460/t.md

```text
On Thu, 27 Feb 2025 15:18:47 +0000 Edward Cree wrote:
> On 27/02/2025 04:45, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > The ordering guarantees of ntuple filters are a bit unclear.
> > My understanding was that first match terminates the search,
> > actually, so your example wouldn't work :S  
> 
> My understanding is that in most ntuple implementations more-
>  specific filters override less-specific ones, in which case
>  Gal's setup would work.

The behavior of partially overlapping rules being undefined?

> On other implementations which use the rule number as a
>  position (like the API/naming implies) you could insert the
>  5-tuple rule first and that would work too.
> 
> > Oh, I think Ed may tell us that using context 0 + queue offset is legit.  
> 
> I hadn't actually thought of that, but yes that's true too.
> 
> Anyway, 'mechanism, not policy' says we should allow ctx 0
>  unless there's some mechanism reason why it can't be
>  supported, and I don't see one.

I never uttered the thought that lead me to opposing. 
ctx 0 is a poor man's pass / accept. If someone needs a pass we should
add an explicit "action pass". Or am I missing something magical that
ctx 0 would do that's not 100% the same as pass (modulo the queue
offset)? Using ctx 0 as implicit pass is a very easy thing to miss
for driver developers.

But yeah, the queue offset is legit.
```