[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <MW4PR11MB591190901E141FDA643B75FEBA5D2@MW4PR11MB5911.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2024 04:39:55 +0000
From: "Singh, Krishneil K" <krishneil.k.singh@...el.com>
To: "Brady, Alan" <alan.brady@...el.com>, "intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org"
<intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org>
CC: "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, "Brady, Alan"
<alan.brady@...el.com>, "Lobakin, Aleksander" <aleksander.lobakin@...el.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v6 10/11 iwl-next] idpf: fix minor controlq issues
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alan Brady <alan.brady@...el.com>
> Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2024 11:05 AM
> To: intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org
> Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org; Brady, Alan <alan.brady@...el.com>; Lobakin,
> Aleksander <aleksander.lobakin@...el.com>
> Subject: [PATCH v6 10/11 iwl-next] idpf: fix minor controlq issues
>
> While we're here improving virtchnl we can include two minor fixes for
> the lower level ctrlq flow.
>
> This adds a memory barrier to idpf_post_rx_buffs before we update tail
> on the controlq. We should make sure our writes have had a chance to
> finish before we tell HW it can touch them.
>
> This also removes some defensive programming in idpf_ctrlq_recv. The
> caller should not be using a num_q_msg value of zero or more than the
> ring size and it's their responsibility to call functions sanely.
>
> Tested-by: Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.lobakin@...el.com>
> Signed-off-by: Alan Brady <alan.brady@...el.com>
> ---
> drivers/net/ethernet/intel/idpf/idpf_controlq.c | 7 ++-----
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/idpf/idpf_controlq.c
> b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/idpf/idpf_controlq.c
Tested-by: Krishneil Singh <krishneil.k.singh@...el.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists