[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <c1514314-cfdf-65d1-986f-de360b4ee719@linux.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2023 14:06:37 +0300
From: "naamax.meir" <naamax.meir@...ux.intel.com>
To: Florian Kauer <florian.kauer@...utronix.de>,
Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>,
Tony Nguyen <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>,
Vinicius Costa Gomes <vinicius.gomes@...el.com>,
"David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet
<edumazet@...gle.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Tan Tee Min <tee.min.tan@...ux.intel.com>,
Muhammad Husaini Zulkifli <muhammad.husaini.zulkifli@...el.com>,
Aravindhan Gunasekaran <aravindhan.gunasekaran@...el.com>,
Malli C <mallikarjuna.chilakala@...el.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, kurt@...utronix.de,
intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH net v2 5/6] igc: Fix launchtime before
start of cycle
On 6/19/2023 13:08, Florian Kauer wrote:
> It is possible (verified on a running system) that frames are processed
> by igc_tx_launchtime with a txtime before the start of the cycle
> (baset_est).
>
> However, the result of txtime - baset_est is written into a u32,
> leading to a wrap around to a positive number. The following
> launchtime > 0 check will only branch to executing launchtime = 0
> if launchtime is already 0.
>
> Fix it by using a s32 before checking launchtime > 0.
>
> Fixes: db0b124f02ba ("igc: Enhance Qbv scheduling by using first flag bit")
> Signed-off-by: Florian Kauer <florian.kauer@...utronix.de>
> Reviewed-by: Kurt Kanzenbach <kurt@...utronix.de>
> ---
> drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igc/igc_main.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
Tested-by: Naama Meir <naamax.meir@...ux.intel.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists