netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 net 2/2] dpaa2-eth: Fix TX FQID values

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <20191015124017.64a3d19b@cakuba.netronome.com>
Date:   Tue, 15 Oct 2019 12:40:17 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
To:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc:     Ioana Ciornei <ioana.ciornei@....com>, davem@...emloft.net,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Ioana Radulescu <ruxandra.radulescu@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net 2/2] dpaa2-eth: Fix TX FQID values

On Tue, 15 Oct 2019 21:29:23 +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/dpaa2/dpaa2-eth.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/dpaa2/dpaa2-eth.c
> > index 5acd734a216b..c3c2c06195ae 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/dpaa2/dpaa2-eth.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/dpaa2/dpaa2-eth.c
> > @@ -1235,6 +1235,8 @@ static void dpaa2_eth_set_rx_taildrop(struct dpaa2_eth_priv *priv, bool enable)
> >  	priv->rx_td_enabled = enable;
> >  }
> >  
> > +static void update_tx_fqids(struct dpaa2_eth_priv *priv);
> > +  
> 
> Hi Ioana and Ioana
> 
> Using forward declarations is generally not liked. Is there something
> which is preventing you from having it earlier in the file?

Ha! I was just about to ask the same question 😊

+out_err:
+	netdev_info(priv->net_dev,
+		    "Error reading Tx FQID, fallback to QDID-based enqueue");
+	priv->enqueue = dpaa2_eth_enqueue_qd;
+}

Here dpaa2_eth_enqueue_qd is a function pointer which is is defined
towards the end of the file :S

But your point obviously stands, and in the future the code should be
structured more carefully :(


Also can I point out that this:

static inline int dpaa2_eth_enqueue_qd(struct dpaa2_eth_priv *priv,             
                                       struct dpaa2_eth_fq *fq,                 
                                       struct dpaa2_fd *fd, u8 prio)            
{                                                                               
        return dpaa2_io_service_enqueue_qd(fq->channel->dpio,                   
                                           priv->tx_qdid, prio,                 
                                           fq->tx_qdbin, fd);                   
}                                                                               
                                                                                
static inline int dpaa2_eth_enqueue_fq(struct dpaa2_eth_priv *priv,             
                                       struct dpaa2_eth_fq *fq,                 
                                       struct dpaa2_fd *fd, u8 prio)            
{                                                                               
        return dpaa2_io_service_enqueue_fq(fq->channel->dpio,                   
                                           fq->tx_fqid[prio], fd);              
}                                                                               
                                                                                
static void set_enqueue_mode(struct dpaa2_eth_priv *priv)                       
{                                                                               
        if (dpaa2_eth_cmp_dpni_ver(priv, DPNI_ENQUEUE_FQID_VER_MAJOR,           
                                   DPNI_ENQUEUE_FQID_VER_MINOR) < 0)            
                priv->enqueue = dpaa2_eth_enqueue_qd;                           
        else                                                                    
                priv->enqueue = dpaa2_eth_enqueue_fq; 
}

Could be the most pointless use of the inline keyword possible :)
Both dpaa2_eth_enqueue_qd() and dpaa2_eth_enqueue_fq() are only ever
called via a pointer..