2022-09-08 03:07:58

by Ziyang Xuan (William)

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: [PATCH 2/2] can: bcm: check the result of can_send() in bcm_can_tx()

If can_send() fail, it should not update statistics in bcm_can_tx().
Add the result check for can_send() in bcm_can_tx().

Fixes: ffd980f976e7 ("[CAN]: Add broadcast manager (bcm) protocol")
Signed-off-by: Ziyang Xuan <[email protected]>
---
net/can/bcm.c | 3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/net/can/bcm.c b/net/can/bcm.c
index e2783156bfd1..8f5d704a409f 100644
--- a/net/can/bcm.c
+++ b/net/can/bcm.c
@@ -298,7 +298,8 @@ static void bcm_can_tx(struct bcm_op *op)
/* send with loopback */
skb->dev = dev;
can_skb_set_owner(skb, op->sk);
- can_send(skb, 1);
+ if (can_send(skb, 1))
+ goto out;

/* update statistics */
op->currframe++;
--
2.25.1


2022-09-08 07:14:46

by Oliver Hartkopp

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] can: bcm: check the result of can_send() in bcm_can_tx()

Sorry, but NACK.

The curr_frame counter handles the sequence counter of multiplex messages.

Even when this single send attempt failed the curr_frame counter has to
continue.

For that reason the comment about statistics *before* the curr_frame++
might be misleading.

A potential improvement could be:

if (!(can_send(skb, 1)))
op->frames_abs++;

op->currframe++;

But as op->frames_abs is a functional unused(!) value for tx ops and
only displayed via procfs I would NOT tag such improvement as a 'fix'
which might then be queued up for stable.

This could be something for the can-next tree ...

Best regards,
Oliver


On 08.09.22 05:04, Ziyang Xuan wrote:
> If can_send() fail, it should not update statistics in bcm_can_tx().
> Add the result check for can_send() in bcm_can_tx().
>
> Fixes: ffd980f976e7 ("[CAN]: Add broadcast manager (bcm) protocol")
> Signed-off-by: Ziyang Xuan <[email protected]>
> ---
> net/can/bcm.c | 3 ++-
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/net/can/bcm.c b/net/can/bcm.c
> index e2783156bfd1..8f5d704a409f 100644
> --- a/net/can/bcm.c
> +++ b/net/can/bcm.c
> @@ -298,7 +298,8 @@ static void bcm_can_tx(struct bcm_op *op)
> /* send with loopback */
> skb->dev = dev;
> can_skb_set_owner(skb, op->sk);
> - can_send(skb, 1);
> + if (can_send(skb, 1))
> + goto out;
>
> /* update statistics */
> op->currframe++;

2022-09-08 12:12:48

by Ziyang Xuan (William)

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] can: bcm: check the result of can_send() in bcm_can_tx()

> Sorry, but NACK.
>
> The curr_frame counter handles the sequence counter of multiplex messages.
>
> Even when this single send attempt failed the curr_frame counter has to continue.
>
> For that reason the comment about statistics *before* the curr_frame++ might be misleading.
>
> A potential improvement could be:
>
>     if (!(can_send(skb, 1)))
>         op->frames_abs++;
>
>     op->currframe++;
>
> But as op->frames_abs is a functional unused(!) value for tx ops and only displayed via procfs I would NOT tag such improvement as a 'fix' which might then be queued up for stable.
>
I will modify and remove 'Fixes' tag in v2.

Thank you for your review.

> This could be something for the can-next tree ...
>
> Best regards,
> Oliver
>
>
> On 08.09.22 05:04, Ziyang Xuan wrote:
>> If can_send() fail, it should not update statistics in bcm_can_tx().
>> Add the result check for can_send() in bcm_can_tx().
>>
>> Fixes: ffd980f976e7 ("[CAN]: Add broadcast manager (bcm) protocol")
>> Signed-off-by: Ziyang Xuan <[email protected]>
>> ---
>>   net/can/bcm.c | 3 ++-
>>   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/net/can/bcm.c b/net/can/bcm.c
>> index e2783156bfd1..8f5d704a409f 100644
>> --- a/net/can/bcm.c
>> +++ b/net/can/bcm.c
>> @@ -298,7 +298,8 @@ static void bcm_can_tx(struct bcm_op *op)
>>       /* send with loopback */
>>       skb->dev = dev;
>>       can_skb_set_owner(skb, op->sk);
>> -    can_send(skb, 1);
>> +    if (can_send(skb, 1))
>> +        goto out;
>>         /* update statistics */
>>       op->currframe++;
> .

2022-09-12 12:06:10

by Marc Kleine-Budde

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] can: bcm: check the result of can_send() in bcm_can_tx()

On 08.09.2022 08:47:57, Oliver Hartkopp wrote:
> Sorry, but NACK.
>
> The curr_frame counter handles the sequence counter of multiplex messages.
>
> Even when this single send attempt failed the curr_frame counter has to
> continue.
>
> For that reason the comment about statistics *before* the curr_frame++ might
> be misleading.
>
> A potential improvement could be:
>
> if (!(can_send(skb, 1)))

Nitpick:
In the kernel we usually assign the return value to a variable first,
and evaluate this variable in the if ().

> op->frames_abs++;
>
> op->currframe++;

Marc

--
Pengutronix e.K. | Marc Kleine-Budde |
Embedded Linux | https://www.pengutronix.de |
Vertretung West/Dortmund | Phone: +49-231-2826-924 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |


Attachments:
(No filename) (872.00 B)
signature.asc (499.00 B)
Download all attachments