[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240906125258.d7rhhcjdic3quqg2@skbuf>
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2024 15:52:58 +0300
From: Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
To: Furong Xu <0x1207@...il.com>
Cc: Serge Semin <fancer.lancer@...il.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...s.st.com>,
Jose Abreu <joabreu@...opsys.com>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>,
Joao Pinto <jpinto@...opsys.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
rmk+kernel@...linux.org.uk, linux@...linux.org.uk, xfr@...look.com,
Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v9 3/7] net: stmmac: refactor FPE verification
process
On Fri, Sep 06, 2024 at 12:55:58PM +0800, Furong Xu wrote:
> @@ -5979,44 +5956,29 @@ static int stmmac_set_features(struct net_device *netdev,
> static void stmmac_fpe_event_status(struct stmmac_priv *priv, int status)
> {
> struct stmmac_fpe_cfg *fpe_cfg = &priv->fpe_cfg;
> - enum stmmac_fpe_state *lo_state = &fpe_cfg->lo_fpe_state;
> - enum stmmac_fpe_state *lp_state = &fpe_cfg->lp_fpe_state;
> - bool *hs_enable = &fpe_cfg->hs_enable;
>
> - if (status == FPE_EVENT_UNKNOWN || !*hs_enable)
> - return;
> + /* This is interrupt context, just spin_lock() */
> + spin_lock(&fpe_cfg->lock);
>
> - /* If LP has sent verify mPacket, LP is FPE capable */
> - if ((status & FPE_EVENT_RVER) == FPE_EVENT_RVER) {
> - if (*lp_state < FPE_STATE_CAPABLE)
> - *lp_state = FPE_STATE_CAPABLE;
> + if (!fpe_cfg->pmac_enabled || status == FPE_EVENT_UNKNOWN)
> + goto unlock_out;
>
> - /* If user has requested FPE enable, quickly response */
> - if (*hs_enable)
> - stmmac_fpe_send_mpacket(priv, priv->ioaddr,
> - fpe_cfg,
> - MPACKET_RESPONSE);
> - }
> + /* LP has sent verify mPacket */
> + if ((status & FPE_EVENT_RVER) == FPE_EVENT_RVER)
> + stmmac_fpe_send_mpacket(priv, priv->ioaddr, fpe_cfg,
> + MPACKET_RESPONSE);
>
> - /* If Local has sent verify mPacket, Local is FPE capable */
> - if ((status & FPE_EVENT_TVER) == FPE_EVENT_TVER) {
> - if (*lo_state < FPE_STATE_CAPABLE)
> - *lo_state = FPE_STATE_CAPABLE;
> - }
> + /* Local has sent verify mPacket */
> + if ((status & FPE_EVENT_TVER) == FPE_EVENT_TVER &&
> + fpe_cfg->status != ETHTOOL_MM_VERIFY_STATUS_SUCCEEDED)
> + fpe_cfg->status = ETHTOOL_MM_VERIFY_STATUS_VERIFYING;
>
> - /* If LP has sent response mPacket, LP is entering FPE ON */
> + /* LP has sent response mPacket */
> if ((status & FPE_EVENT_RRSP) == FPE_EVENT_RRSP)
> - *lp_state = FPE_STATE_ENTERING_ON;
> + fpe_cfg->status = ETHTOOL_MM_VERIFY_STATUS_SUCCEEDED;
Nitpick, doesn't affect normal behavior.
If the link partner crafts an unsolicited Response mPacket, and we have
verify_enabled = false, what we should do is we should ignore it.
But what the code does is to transition the state to SUCCEEDED, as if
verify_enabled was true.
We should ignore FPE_EVENT_RRSP events if we are in the
ETHTOOL_MM_VERIFY_STATUS_DISABLED state.
Depending on how the maintainers feel, this could also be handled in a
subsequent patch.
>
> - /* If Local has sent response mPacket, Local is entering FPE ON */
> - if ((status & FPE_EVENT_TRSP) == FPE_EVENT_TRSP)
> - *lo_state = FPE_STATE_ENTERING_ON;
> -
> - if (!test_bit(__FPE_REMOVING, &priv->fpe_task_state) &&
> - !test_and_set_bit(__FPE_TASK_SCHED, &priv->fpe_task_state) &&
> - priv->fpe_wq) {
> - queue_work(priv->fpe_wq, &priv->fpe_task);
> - }
> +unlock_out:
> + spin_unlock(&fpe_cfg->lock);
> }
>
> static void stmmac_common_interrupt(struct stmmac_priv *priv)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists