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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2021 13:35:25 +0200 From: Simon Horman <simon.horman@...igine.com> To: Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com> Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, oss-drivers@...igine.com, Baowen Zheng <baowen.zheng@...igine.com>, Louis Peens <louis.peens@...igine.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 3/3] flow_offload: add process to update action stats from hardware On Tue, Aug 03, 2021 at 07:24:47AM -0400, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote: > On 2021-07-22 5:19 a.m., Simon Horman wrote: > > [..] > > > /* offload the tc command after deleted */ > > int tcf_action_offload_del_post(struct flow_offload_action *fl_act, > > struct tc_action *actions[], > > @@ -1255,6 +1293,9 @@ int tcf_action_copy_stats(struct sk_buff *skb, struct tc_action *p, > > if (p == NULL) > > goto errout; > > + /* update hw stats for this action */ > > + tcf_action_update_hw_stats(p); > > This is more a curiosity than a comment on the patch: Is the > driver polling for these stats synchronously and what we get here > is the last update or do we end up invoking beyond > the driver when requesting for the stats? I would have to double check but I believe the driver will report back stats already received from the HW, rather than going all the way to HW when the above call is made. > Overall commentary from looking at the patch set: > I believe your patches will support the individual tc actions > add/del/get/dump command line requests. Yes, that is the aim of this patchset. > What is missing is an example usage all the way to the driver. I am sure > you have additional patches that put this to good use. My suggestion > is to test that cli with that pov against your overall patches and > show this in your commit logs - even if those patches are to follow > later. Thanks, I'll see about making that so. Just to be clear. We do have patches for the driver. And we do plan to post them for inclusion in mainline. But I do believe that from a review perspective its easier if one thing follows another.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists