netdev - RE: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 02/10] net: atlantic: additional per-queue stats

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]

Message-ID: <CH2PR18MB32389D98739CE4A126F2DDE0D37F0@CH2PR18MB3238.namprd18.prod.outlook.com>
Date:   Thu, 16 Jul 2020 11:49:25 +0000
From:   Mark Starovoytov <mstarovoitov@...vell.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
CC:     "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Dmitry Bogdanov <dbogdanov@...vell.com>,
        Igor Russkikh <irusskikh@...vell.com>
Subject: RE: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 02/10] net: atlantic: additional
 per-queue stats


>> +int aq_nic_fill_stats_data(struct aq_ring_stats_rx_s *stats_rx,
>> +			   struct aq_ring_stats_tx_s *stats_tx,
>> +			   u64 *data,
>> +			   unsigned int *p_count)
>> +{
>> +	unsigned int count = 0U;
>> +	/* This data should mimic aq_ethtool_queue_stat_names structure
>> +	 */
>> +	data[count] += stats_rx->packets;
>> +	data[++count] += stats_tx->packets;
>> +	data[++count] += stats_tx->queue_restarts;
>> +	data[++count] += stats_rx->jumbo_packets;
>> +	data[++count] += stats_rx->lro_packets;
>> +	data[++count] += stats_rx->errors;
>> +	data[++count] += stats_rx->alloc_fails;
>> +	data[++count] += stats_rx->skb_alloc_fails;
>> +	data[++count] += stats_rx->polls;
>> +
>> +	if (p_count)
>> +		*p_count = ++count;
>> +
>> +	return 0;
>> +}
> 
> I don't see this function being taken care of in the following patch introducing
> the u64_stats_update_* use.

My bad, I totally missed this function somehow. Thanks for reporting.

> For review it'd be easier to get the existing problems fixed first.

> Also since this function always returns 0 please make it void.

Will do.

Best regards,
Mark.