netdev - Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH iwl-next v5 02/12] ice: support Rx timestamp on flex descriptor

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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <79ca3bc8-a6af-4fbc-97bc-8b694fcc57d5@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2024 11:34:33 +0200
From: Mateusz Polchlopek <mateusz.polchlopek@...el.com>
To: Rahul Rameshbabu <rrameshbabu@...dia.com>
CC: <intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	<horms@...nel.org>, <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>, Simei Su
	<simei.su@...el.com>, Wojciech Drewek <wojciech.drewek@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH iwl-next v5 02/12] ice: support Rx
 timestamp on flex descriptor



On 4/18/2024 8:57 PM, Rahul Rameshbabu wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Apr, 2024 01:24:50 -0400 Mateusz Polchlopek <mateusz.polchlopek@...el.com> wrote:
>> From: Simei Su <simei.su@...el.com>
>>
>> To support Rx timestamp offload, VIRTCHNL_OP_1588_PTP_CAPS is sent by
>> the VF to request PTP capability and responded by the PF what capability
>> is enabled for that VF.
>>
>> Hardware captures timestamps which contain only 32 bits of nominal
>> nanoseconds, as opposed to the 64bit timestamps that the stack expects.
>> To convert 32b to 64b, we need a current PHC time.
>> VIRTCHNL_OP_1588_PTP_GET_TIME is sent by the VF and responded by the
>> PF with the current PHC time.
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Wojciech Drewek <wojciech.drewek@...el.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Simei Su <simei.su@...el.com>
>> Co-developed-by: Mateusz Polchlopek <mateusz.polchlopek@...el.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Mateusz Polchlopek <mateusz.polchlopek@...el.com>
>> ---
> <snip>
>> @@ -1779,9 +1782,17 @@ static int ice_vc_cfg_qs_msg(struct ice_vf *vf, u8 *msg)
>>   				rxdid = ICE_RXDID_LEGACY_1;
>>   			}
>>   
>> -			ice_write_qrxflxp_cntxt(&vsi->back->hw,
>> -						vsi->rxq_map[q_idx],
>> -						rxdid, 0x03, false);
>> +			if (vf->driver_caps &
>> +			    VIRTCHNL_VF_OFFLOAD_RX_FLEX_DESC &&
>> +			    vf->driver_caps & VIRTCHNL_VF_CAP_PTP &&
>> +			    qpi->rxq.flags & VIRTCHNL_PTP_RX_TSTAMP)
> 
> Just a general suggestion, any reason we cannot use test_bit, set_bit,
> clear_bit, etc for these flags?
> 

No reason, I will try to use mentioned in the next version, thanks.

>> +				ice_write_qrxflxp_cntxt(&vsi->back->hw,
>> +							vsi->rxq_map[q_idx],
>> +							rxdid, 0x03, true);
>> +			else
>> +				ice_write_qrxflxp_cntxt(&vsi->back->hw,
>> +							vsi->rxq_map[q_idx],
>> +							rxdid, 0x03, false);
>>   		}
>>   	}
>>   
> <snip>
> 
> --
> Thanks,
> 
> Rahul Rameshbabu