[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <48f2de4d-1695-4d8d-834d-b306b17e09a1@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2024 15:30:03 +0100
From: Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.lobakin@...el.com>
To: Wei Fang <wei.fang@....com>
CC: Claudiu Manoil <claudiu.manoil@....com>, Vladimir Oltean
<vladimir.oltean@....com>, Clark Wang <xiaoning.wang@....com>,
"andrew+netdev@...n.ch" <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>, "davem@...emloft.net"
<davem@...emloft.net>, "edumazet@...gle.com" <edumazet@...gle.com>,
"kuba@...nel.org" <kuba@...nel.org>, "pabeni@...hat.com" <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Frank Li <frank.li@....com>, "horms@...nel.org" <horms@...nel.org>,
"idosch@...sch.org" <idosch@...sch.org>, "netdev@...r.kernel.org"
<netdev@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "imx@...ts.linux.dev" <imx@...ts.linux.dev>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 net-next 3/4] net: enetc: add LSO support for i.MX95
ENETC PF
From: Wei Fang <wei.fang@....com>
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2024 03:06:06 +0000
>>> +static inline int enetc_lso_count_descs(const struct sk_buff *skb) {
>>> + /* 4 BDs: 1 BD for LSO header + 1 BD for extended BD + 1 BD
>>> + * for linear area data but not include LSO header, namely
>>> + * skb_headlen(skb) - lso_hdr_len. And 1 BD for gap.
[...]
>>> + ((first) & SILSOSFMR0_TCP_1ST_SEG))
>>> +
>>> +#define ENETC4_SILSOSFMR1 0x1304
>>> +#define SILSOSFMR1_TCP_LAST_SEG GENMASK(11, 0)
>>> +#define TCP_FLAGS_FIN BIT(0)
>>> +#define TCP_FLAGS_SYN BIT(1)
>>> +#define TCP_FLAGS_RST BIT(2)
>>> +#define TCP_FLAGS_PSH BIT(3)
>>> +#define TCP_FLAGS_ACK BIT(4)
>>> +#define TCP_FLAGS_URG BIT(5)
>>> +#define TCP_FLAGS_ECE BIT(6)
>>> +#define TCP_FLAGS_CWR BIT(7)
>>> +#define TCP_FLAGS_NS BIT(8)
>>
>> Why are you open-coding these if they're present in uapi/linux/tcp.h?
>
> Okay, I will add 'ENETC' prefix.
You don't need to add a prefix, you need to just use the generic
definitions from the abovementioned file.
>>
>>> +/* According to tso_build_hdr(), clear all special flags for not last
>>> +packet. */
>>
>> But this mask is used only to do a writel(), I don't see it anywhere clearing
>> anything...
Thanks,
Olek
Powered by blists - more mailing lists