netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 06/20] net: hns3: Modify the update period of packet statistics

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: <7784fdd6-dbdc-0d5d-9ba1-e2f05594d1dc@huawei.com>
Date:   Sat, 6 Jan 2018 14:23:25 +0800
From:   "lipeng (Y)" <lipeng321@...wei.com>
To:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
CC:     <davem@...emloft.net>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linuxarm@...wei.com>,
        <salil.mehta@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 06/20] net: hns3: Modify the update period of
 packet statistics



On 2018/1/5 22:54, Andrew Lunn wrote:
>> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/hisilicon/hns3/hns3_enet.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/hisilicon/hns3/hns3_enet.c
>> @@ -1126,6 +1126,7 @@ static int hns3_nic_set_features(struct net_device *netdev,
>>   {
>>   	struct hns3_nic_priv *priv = netdev_priv(netdev);
>>   	int queue_num = priv->ae_handle->kinfo.num_tqps;
>> +	struct hnae3_handle *handle = priv->ae_handle;
>>   	struct hns3_enet_ring *ring;
>>   	unsigned int start;
>>   	unsigned int idx;
>> @@ -1134,6 +1135,8 @@ static int hns3_nic_set_features(struct net_device *netdev,
>>   	u64 tx_pkts = 0;
>>   	u64 rx_pkts = 0;
>>   
>> +	handle->ae_algo->ops->update_stats(handle, &netdev->stats);
>> +
>>   	for (idx = 0; idx < queue_num; idx++) {
>>   		/* fetch the tx stats */
>>   		ring = priv->ring_data[idx].ring;
> There is something odd going on with patch here. Notice how it says
> hns3_nic_set_features(). This is not the function being patched, it is
> actually the next one, hns3_nic_get_stats64(), which makes a lot more
> sense.
>
> Is it because the static void is on the previous line?
Yes, it is because the static void is on the previous line.

I can add one patch to fix the  previous line ,  and this patch will 
correct  automatically.

do it need V2 patchset? or push a new patch after this patchset?

>
> It would be nice if the function was correctly reported. It makes it
> easier to review the patch.
>
>         Andrew
>
> .
>