netdev - Re: [PATCH] cxgbit: use T6 specific macro to set force bit

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]

Message-ID: <1485292300.12563.41.camel@perches.com>
Date:   Tue, 24 Jan 2017 13:11:40 -0800
From:   Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:     Varun Prakash <varun@...lsio.com>, bart.vanassche@...disk.com
Cc:     target-devel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        indranil@...lsio.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cxgbit: use T6 specific macro to set force bit

On Tue, 2017-01-24 at 17:07 +0530, Varun Prakash wrote:
> For T6 adapters use T6 specific macro to set
> force bit.
[]
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/chelsio/cxgb4/t4_msg.h b/drivers/net/ethernet/chelsio/cxgb4/t4_msg.h
[]
> @@ -1349,6 +1349,10 @@ struct cpl_tx_data {
>  #define TX_FORCE_S	13
>  #define TX_FORCE_V(x)	((x) << TX_FORCE_S)
>  
> +#define T6_TX_FORCE_S		20
> +#define T6_TX_FORCE_V(x)	((x) << T6_TX_FORCE_S)
> +#define T6_TX_FORCE_F		T6_TX_FORCE_V(1U)
> +
>  enum {
>  	ULP_TX_MEM_READ = 2,
>  	ULP_TX_MEM_WRITE = 3,
> diff --git a/drivers/target/iscsi/cxgbit/cxgbit_target.c b/drivers/target/iscsi/cxgbit/cxgbit_target.c
[]
> @@ -162,12 +162,14 @@ cxgbit_tx_data_wr(struct cxgbit_sock *csk, struct sk_buff *skb, u32 dlen,
>  		  u32 len, u32 credits, u32 compl)
>  {
>  	struct fw_ofld_tx_data_wr *req;
> +	const struct cxgb4_lld_info *lldi = &csk->com.cdev->lldi;
>  	u32 submode = cxgbit_skcb_submode(skb);
>  	u32 wr_ulp_mode = 0;
>  	u32 hdr_size = sizeof(*req);
>  	u32 opcode = FW_OFLD_TX_DATA_WR;
>  	u32 immlen = 0;
> -	u32 force = TX_FORCE_V(!submode);
> +	u32 force = is_t5(lldi->adapter_type) ? TX_FORCE_V(!submode) :
> +		    T6_TX_FORCE_F;

Perhaps it'd be better to add a is_t6() mechanism so this
is written in the positive rather than the negative.