linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH net-next v7 02/12] net: dsa: microchip: add IPV information support

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Mon, 6 May 2024 20:43:48 +0000
From: <Woojung.Huh@...rochip.com>
To: <o.rempel@...gutronix.de>, <davem@...emloft.net>, <andrew@...n.ch>,
	<edumazet@...gle.com>, <f.fainelli@...il.com>, <kuba@...nel.org>,
	<pabeni@...hat.com>, <olteanv@...il.com>, <Arun.Ramadoss@...rochip.com>
CC: <kernel@...gutronix.de>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com>,
	<dsahern@...nel.org>, <horms@...nel.org>, <willemb@...gle.com>, <san@...v.dk>
Subject: RE: [PATCH net-next v7 02/12] net: dsa: microchip: add IPV
 information support

Hi Oleksij,

Thanks for the patch and sorry about late comment on this.

I have a comment on the name of IPV (Internal Priority Value)
IPV is added and used term in 802.1Qci PSFP
(https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8064221) and, merged into 802.1Q (from 802.1Q-2018)
for another functions. 

Even it does similar operation holding temporal priority value internally (as it is named),
because KSZ datasheet doesn't use the term of IPV (Internal Priority Value) and
avoiding any confusion later when PSFP is in the Linux world,
I would like to recommend a different name such as IPM (Internal Priority Mapping) than IPV.

How do you think?

Best regards,
Woojung

> Most of Microchip KSZ switches use Internal Priority Value associated
> with every frame. For example, it is possible to map any VLAN PCP or
> DSCP value to IPV and at the end, map IPV to a queue.
> 
> Since amount of IPVs is not equal to amount of queues, add this
> information and make use of it in some functions.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@...gutronix.de>
> Acked-by: Arun Ramadoss <arun.ramadoss@...rochip.com>
> ---
> changes v3:
> - rename max_ipvs to num_ipvs
> - drop comparison of num_tx_queues and num_ipvs. It makes no much sense.
> ---