[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8e112b31-0168-4e82-a378-87211ea99cfa@fiberby.net>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2024 16:25:53 +0000
From: Asbjørn Sloth Tønnesen <ast@...erby.net>
To: Daniel Machon <daniel.machon@...rochip.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, Steen Hegelund <Steen.Hegelund@...rochip.com>,
Lars Povlsen <lars.povlsen@...rochip.com>, UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/2] net: sparx5: flower: cleanup
sparx5_tc_flower_handler_control_usage()
Hi Daniel,
Thank you for the review.
On 4/23/24 11:15 AM, Daniel Machon wrote:
> Hi Asbjørn,
>
> Thank you for your patch!
>
>> Define extack locally, to reduce line lengths and future users.
>>
>> Only perform fragment handling, when at least one fragment flag is set.
>>
>> Remove goto, as it's only used once, and the error message is specific
>> to that context.
>>
>> Only compile tested.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Asbjørn Sloth Tønnesen <ast@...erby.net>
>> ---
>> .../ethernet/microchip/sparx5/sparx5_tc_flower.c | 13 ++++++-------
>> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/sparx5/sparx5_tc_flower.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/sparx5/sparx5_tc_flower.c
>> index 663571fe7b2d..d846edd77a01 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/sparx5/sparx5_tc_flower.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/sparx5/sparx5_tc_flower.c
>> @@ -159,13 +159,14 @@ sparx5_tc_flower_handler_basic_usage(struct vcap_tc_flower_parse_usage *st)
>> static int
>> sparx5_tc_flower_handler_control_usage(struct vcap_tc_flower_parse_usage *st)
>> {
>> + struct netlink_ext_ack *extack = st->fco->common.extack;
>
> Could you please update the use of extack in all places inside this
> function. You are missing one place.
Good catch, sure. It must have got lost somewhere along the way. I deliberately kept it out
of the net patch, since it could wait for net-next.
>> struct flow_match_control mt;
>> u32 value, mask;
>> int err = 0;
>>
>> flow_rule_match_control(st->frule, &mt);
>>
>> - if (mt.mask->flags) {
>> + if (mt.mask->flags & (FLOW_DIS_IS_FRAGMENT | FLOW_DIS_FIRST_FRAG)) {
>
> Since these flags are used here and in the next patch, maybe assign them
> to a variable:
>
> u32 supp_flags = FLOW_DIS_IS_FRAGMENT | FLOW_DIS_FIRST_FRAG
>
> And update the use throughout.
In an earlier state this patch had a #define SPARX5_FLOWER_SUPPORTED_CTLFLAGS,
in the same style as nfp in drivers/net/ethernet/netronome/nfp/flower/offload.c
Right now, this driver supports all currently defined flags (which are used with mask),
so the point of using flow_rule_is_supp_control_flags() to this dirver, is to
make it possible to introduce new flags in the future, without having to update
all drivers to explicitly not support a new flag.
My problem with using supp_flags in both places is: What happens when support
for a new flag is introduced?
u32 supp_flags = FLOW_DIS_IS_FRAGMENT | FLOW_DIS_FIRST_FRAG | FLOW_DIS_NEW_FLAG;
if (mt.mask->flags & (FLOW_DIS_IS_FRAGMENT | FLOW_DIS_FIRST_FRAG))
/* handle fragment flags through lookup table */
if (mt.mask->flags & FLOW_DIS_NEW_FLAG)
/* do something */
if (!flow_rule_is_supp_control_flags(supp_flags, mt.mask->flags, extack))
return -EOPNOTSUPP;
The fragment lookup table code currently requires the above guarding,
as [0][0] in the lookup table is FRAG_INVAL, and not FRAG_SHRUG.
What do you think?
--
Best regards
Asbjørn Sloth Tønnesen
Network Engineer
Fiberby - AS42541
Powered by blists - more mailing lists