[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y+pZgFMDNrxxaSS9@kadam>
Date:   Mon, 13 Feb 2023 18:38:40 +0300
From:   Dan Carpenter <error27@...il.com>
To:     Steen Hegelund <steen.hegelund@...rochip.com>
Cc:     "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
        Casper Andersson <casper.casan@...il.com>,
        Russell King <rmk+kernel@...linux.org.uk>,
        Wan Jiabing <wanjiabing@...o.com>,
        Nathan Huckleberry <nhuck@...gle.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        Daniel Machon <daniel.machon@...rochip.com>,
        Horatiu Vultur <horatiu.vultur@...rochip.com>,
        Lars Povlsen <lars.povlsen@...rochip.com>,
        Michael Walle <michael@...le.cc>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 02/10] net: microchip: sparx5: Clear rule
 counter even if lookup is disabled
On Mon, Feb 13, 2023 at 04:32:21PM +0100, Steen Hegelund wrote:
> There are two writes to the 792 address as the counter recides with the start of
> the rule (the lowest address of the rule).  Instead of being written after the
> rule, it is now being written before the rule, so the test array that records
> the order of the write operations gets changed.
> 
> The is2_admin.last_used_addr on the other hand records the "low water mark" of
> used addresses in the VCAP instance, so it does not change as the rule size is
> the same.
That explains it.  Thanks!
regards,
dan carpenter
Powered by blists - more mailing lists