netdev - Re: [net-next v5 2/2] net/mlx5e: Add per queue netdev-genl stats

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]

Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2024 11:30:40 +0300
From: Tariq Toukan <ttoukan.linux@...il.com>
To: Joe Damato <jdamato@...tly.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
 netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, nalramli@...tly.com,
 Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...dia.com>, Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>,
 "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
 Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>,
 "open list:MELLANOX MLX5 core VPI driver" <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
 Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [net-next v5 2/2] net/mlx5e: Add per queue netdev-genl stats

On 14/06/2024 1:12, Joe Damato wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 02:58:17PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>> On Thu, 13 Jun 2024 23:25:12 +0300 Tariq Toukan wrote:
>>>> +		for (i = priv->channels.params.num_channels; i < priv->stats_nch; i++) {
>>>
>>> IIUC, per the current kernel implementation, the lower parts won't be
>>> completed in a loop over [0..real_num_rx_queues-1], as that loop is
>>> conditional, happening only if the queues are active.
>>
>> Could you rephrase this? Is priv->channels.params.num_channels
>> non-zero also when device is closed? I'm just guessing from
>> the code, TBH, I can't parse your reply :(
> 
> I don't mean to speak for Tariq (so my apologies Tariq), but I
> suspect it may not be clear in which cases IFF_UP is checked and in
> which cases get_base is called.
> 

Exactly.

> I tried to clear it up in my longer response with examples from
> code.
> 
> If you have a moment could you take a look and let me know if I've
> gotten it wrong in my explanation/walk through?

Thanks for the detailed explanation.