net/mlx5: E-switch, Don't destroy indirect table in split rule

Source port rewrite (forward to ovs internal port or statck device) isn't
supported in the rule of split action. So there is no indirect table in
split rule. The cited commit destroyes indirect table in split rule. The
indirect table for other rules will be destroyed wrongly. It will cause
traffic loss.

Fix it by removing the destroy function in split rule. And also remove
the destroy function in error flow.

Fixes: 10742ef ("net/mlx5e: VF tunnel TX traffic offloading")
Signed-off-by: Chris Mi <cmi@nvidia.com>
Reviewed-by: Roi Dayan <roid@nvidia.com>
Reviewed-by: Maor Dickman <maord@nvidia.com>
Signed-off-by: Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@nvidia.com>

Author: Chris Mi

drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/eswitch_offloads.c

@@ -760,7 +760,6 @@ mlx5_eswitch_add_fwd_rule(struct mlx5_eswitch *esw,
 	kfree(dest);
 	return rule;
 err_chain_src_rewrite:
-	esw_put_dest_tables_loop(esw, attr, 0, i);
 	mlx5_esw_vporttbl_put(esw, &fwd_attr);
 err_get_fwd:
 	mlx5_chains_put_table(chains, attr->chain, attr->prio, 0);
@@ -803,7 +802,6 @@ __mlx5_eswitch_del_rule(struct mlx5_eswitch *esw,
 	if (fwd_rule)  {
 		mlx5_esw_vporttbl_put(esw, &fwd_attr);
 		mlx5_chains_put_table(chains, attr->chain, attr->prio, 0);
-		esw_put_dest_tables_loop(esw, attr, 0, esw_attr->split_count);
 	} else {
 		if (split)
 			mlx5_esw_vporttbl_put(esw, &fwd_attr);