# Re: \[PATCH net-next 6/6\] eth: sfc: falcon: migrate to new RXFH callbacks

- From: Jakub Kicinski \<kuba@kernel.org\>
- Date: 2025-06-13 14:50:11 
- List: netdev
- Page: https://ratatoskr.run/netdev/2025/06/11329468
- Thread: https://ratatoskr.run/netdev/2025/06/11329408/t.md

```text
On Fri, 13 Jun 2025 14:44:40 +0100 Edward Cree wrote:
> So granted that you're only moving code, but looking at this it doesn't
>  actually make sense, since every path that sets info->data to nonzero
>  also sets min_revision, so why not just do the ef4_nic_rev() check at
>  the start?  Answer, from git log spelunking, is that when this code was
>  shared with Siena, EFX_REV_SIENA_A0 supported IPv6 here.

Ack, I was tempted to clean this up, but it felt slightly outside of 
the objective. Looks like I need to respin for enetc - I can change 
it in v2 if you'd like?

> Have a
> Reviewed-By: Edward Cree <ecree.xilinx@gmail.com>
> ... but this patch could be followed-up with a simplification to put
> 	if (ef4_nic_rev(efx) < EF4_REV_FALCON_B0)
> 		return 0;
>  before the switch and get rid of min_revision.
> Falcon is long since end-of-life, so I don't have any NICs and can't run
>  any tests, which maybe means the smart thing to do is just to leave well
>  alone and not touch this code beyond your factoring.
> 
> *twitches with barely-suppressed urge to fix it anyway*
> -ed
> 
> PS: I spent about two hours reading device documentation from 2008
>  because I thought it said Falcon did 4-tuple hashing on UDP too.  For
>  the record: the 'Falcon hash' was broken (in some unspecified way), so
>  falcon_init_rx_cfg() selects the Toeplitz hash which does indeed only
>  consume port numbers on these devices if protocol is TCP.  And I will
>  never get that time back :/

:D
```