netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 iwl-next 09/10] idpf: add support for Rx timestamping

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: <6749e251407f0_23772a2948f@willemb.c.googlers.com.notmuch>
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2024 10:48:33 -0500
From: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
To: Milena Olech <milena.olech@...el.com>, 
 intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, 
 anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com, 
 przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com, 
 Milena Olech <milena.olech@...el.com>, 
 Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.lobakin@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 iwl-next 09/10] idpf: add support for Rx timestamping

Milena Olech wrote:
> Add Rx timestamp function when the Rx timestamp value is read directly
> from the Rx descriptor. In order to extend the Rx timestamp value to 64
> bit in hot path, the PHC time is cached in the receive groups.
> Add supported Rx timestamp modes.
> 
> Reviewed-by: Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.lobakin@...el.com>
> Signed-off-by: Milena Olech <milena.olech@...el.com>
> ---
> v1 -> v2: extend commit message
> 
>  drivers/net/ethernet/intel/idpf/idpf_ptp.c  | 77 ++++++++++++++++++++-
>  drivers/net/ethernet/intel/idpf/idpf_txrx.c | 30 ++++++++
>  drivers/net/ethernet/intel/idpf/idpf_txrx.h |  7 +-
>  3 files changed, 111 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> +/**
> + * idpf_ptp_set_rx_tstamp - Enable or disable Rx timestamping
> + * @vport: Virtual port structure
> + * @rx_filter: bool value for whether timestamps are enabled or disabled
> + */
> +static void idpf_ptp_set_rx_tstamp(struct idpf_vport *vport, int rx_filter)
> +{
> +	vport->tstamp_config.rx_filter = rx_filter;
> +
> +	if (rx_filter == HWTSTAMP_FILTER_NONE)
> +		return;
> +

Same question as v1:

Should this clear the bit if it was previously set, instead of
returning immediately?

If not, why not. The function comment says enable or disable.

> +	for (u16 i = 0; i < vport->num_rxq_grp; i++) {
> +		struct idpf_rxq_group *grp = &vport->rxq_grps[i];
> +		u16 j;
> +
> +		if (idpf_is_queue_model_split(vport->rxq_model)) {
> +			for (j = 0; j < grp->singleq.num_rxq; j++)
> +				idpf_queue_set(PTP, grp->singleq.rxqs[j]);
> +		} else {
> +			for (j = 0; j < grp->splitq.num_rxq_sets; j++)
> +				idpf_queue_set(PTP,
> +					       &grp->splitq.rxq_sets[j]->rxq);
> +		}
> +	}
> +}