netdev - Re: [v3, PATCH] net: stmmac: add support for hash table size 128/256 in dwmac4

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 28 May 2019 18:40:19 +0200
From:   Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To:     biao huang <biao.huang@...iatek.com>
Cc:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, jianguo.zhang@...iatek.com,
        alexandre.torgue@...com, boon.leong.ong@...el.com,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        yt.shen@...iatek.com, joabreu@...opsys.com,
        linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org, mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com,
        matthias.bgg@...il.com, peppe.cavallaro@...com,
        linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [v3, PATCH] net: stmmac: add support for hash table size 128/256
 in dwmac4

On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 09:52:49AM +0800, biao huang wrote:
> Dear David,
> 
> On Mon, 2019-05-27 at 10:08 -0700, David Miller wrote:
> > From: Biao Huang <biao.huang@...iatek.com>
> > Date: Mon, 27 May 2019 11:14:27 +0800
> > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/dwmac4_core.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/dwmac4_core.c
> > > index 5e98da4..029a3db 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/dwmac4_core.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/dwmac4_core.c
> > > @@ -403,41 +403,50 @@ static void dwmac4_set_filter(struct mac_device_info *hw,
> > >  			      struct net_device *dev)
> > >  {
> > >  	void __iomem *ioaddr = (void __iomem *)dev->base_addr;
> > > -	unsigned int value = 0;
> > > +	unsigned int value;
> > > +	int numhashregs = (hw->multicast_filter_bins >> 5);
> > > +	int mcbitslog2 = hw->mcast_bits_log2;
> > > +	int i;
> > 
> > Please retain the reverse christmas tree ordering here.
> I'm a little confused about the reverse xmas tree ordering.
> 
> should I reorder them only according to the total length like this:
> 
> 	void __iomem *ioaddr = (void __iomem *)dev->base_addr;
> 	int numhashregs = (hw->multicast_filter_bins >> 5);
> 	int mcbitslog2 = hw->mcast_bits_log2;
> 	unsigned int value;
> 	int i;

Yes.
	Andrew