When a rule counter is external to the VCAP such as the Sparx5 IS2 counters
are, then this counter must be reset when a new rule is created.
Signed-off-by: Steen Hegelund <[email protected]>
---
drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/vcap/vcap_api.c | 3 +++
drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/vcap/vcap_api_kunit.c | 4 ++--
2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/vcap/vcap_api.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/vcap/vcap_api.c
index b9b6432f4094..67e0a3d9103a 100644
--- a/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/vcap/vcap_api.c
+++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/vcap/vcap_api.c
@@ -1808,6 +1808,7 @@ int vcap_add_rule(struct vcap_rule *rule)
{
struct vcap_rule_internal *ri = to_intrule(rule);
struct vcap_rule_move move = {0};
+ struct vcap_counter ctr = {0};
int ret;
ret = vcap_api_check(ri->vctrl);
@@ -1833,6 +1834,8 @@ int vcap_add_rule(struct vcap_rule *rule)
ret = vcap_write_rule(ri);
if (ret)
pr_err("%s:%d: rule write error: %d\n", __func__, __LINE__, ret);
+ /* Set the counter to zero */
+ ret = vcap_write_counter(ri, &ctr);
out:
mutex_unlock(&ri->admin->lock);
return ret;
diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/vcap/vcap_api_kunit.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/vcap/vcap_api_kunit.c
index 76a31215ebfb..944de5cb9114 100644
--- a/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/vcap/vcap_api_kunit.c
+++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/vcap/vcap_api_kunit.c
@@ -1343,8 +1343,8 @@ static void vcap_api_encode_rule_test(struct kunit *test)
u32 port_mask_rng_mask = 0x0f;
u32 igr_port_mask_value = 0xffabcd01;
u32 igr_port_mask_mask = ~0;
- /* counter is not written yet, so it is not in expwriteaddr */
- u32 expwriteaddr[] = {792, 793, 794, 795, 796, 797, 0};
+ /* counter is written as the last operation */
+ u32 expwriteaddr[] = {792, 793, 794, 795, 796, 797, 792};
int idx;
vcap_test_api_init(&is2_admin);
--
2.39.0
On Thu, Jan 05, 2023 at 09:13:29AM +0100, Steen Hegelund wrote:
> When a rule counter is external to the VCAP such as the Sparx5 IS2 counters
> are, then this counter must be reset when a new rule is created.
>
> Signed-off-by: Steen Hegelund <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/vcap/vcap_api.c | 3 +++
> drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/vcap/vcap_api_kunit.c | 4 ++--
> 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/vcap/vcap_api.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/vcap/vcap_api.c
> index b9b6432f4094..67e0a3d9103a 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/vcap/vcap_api.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/vcap/vcap_api.c
> @@ -1808,6 +1808,7 @@ int vcap_add_rule(struct vcap_rule *rule)
> {
> struct vcap_rule_internal *ri = to_intrule(rule);
> struct vcap_rule_move move = {0};
> + struct vcap_counter ctr = {0};
> int ret;
>
> ret = vcap_api_check(ri->vctrl);
> @@ -1833,6 +1834,8 @@ int vcap_add_rule(struct vcap_rule *rule)
> ret = vcap_write_rule(ri);
> if (ret)
> pr_err("%s:%d: rule write error: %d\n", __func__, __LINE__, ret);
> + /* Set the counter to zero */
> + ret = vcap_write_counter(ri, &ctr);
> out:
> mutex_unlock(&ri->admin->lock);
> return ret;
I feel like you intended to send a v2 series but accidentally resent
the v1 series. Otherwise I guess I have the same question as before.
regards,
dan carpenter
Hi Dan,
On Thu, 2023-01-05 at 12:10 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the
> content is safe
>
> On Thu, Jan 05, 2023 at 09:13:29AM +0100, Steen Hegelund wrote:
> > When a rule counter is external to the VCAP such as the Sparx5 IS2 counters
> > are, then this counter must be reset when a new rule is created.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Steen Hegelund <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/vcap/vcap_api.c | 3 +++
> > drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/vcap/vcap_api_kunit.c | 4 ++--
> > 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/vcap/vcap_api.c
> > b/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/vcap/vcap_api.c
> > index b9b6432f4094..67e0a3d9103a 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/vcap/vcap_api.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/vcap/vcap_api.c
> > @@ -1808,6 +1808,7 @@ int vcap_add_rule(struct vcap_rule *rule)
> > {
> > struct vcap_rule_internal *ri = to_intrule(rule);
> > struct vcap_rule_move move = {0};
> > + struct vcap_counter ctr = {0};
> > int ret;
> >
> > ret = vcap_api_check(ri->vctrl);
> > @@ -1833,6 +1834,8 @@ int vcap_add_rule(struct vcap_rule *rule)
> > ret = vcap_write_rule(ri);
> > if (ret)
> > pr_err("%s:%d: rule write error: %d\n", __func__, __LINE__,
> > ret);
> > + /* Set the counter to zero */
> > + ret = vcap_write_counter(ri, &ctr);
> > out:
> > mutex_unlock(&ri->admin->lock);
> > return ret;
>
> I feel like you intended to send a v2 series but accidentally resent
> the v1 series. Otherwise I guess I have the same question as before.
This series was first sent to net, but the response was that I should go into
net-next instead, so it is really a first version in net-next.
What was your question? I was not able to find it...
BR
Steen
>
> regards,
> dan carpenter
>
[ Email re-arranged because I screwed up - dan]
On Thu, Jan 05, 2023 at 11:43:17AM +0100, Steen Hegelund wrote:
> This series was first sent to net, but the response was that I should go into
> net-next instead, so it is really a first version in net-next.
>
> What was your question? I was not able to find it...
Ugh... Oauth2 code (mutt/msmtp) silently ate my email. Sorry.
> > > @@ -1833,6 +1834,8 @@ int vcap_add_rule(struct vcap_rule *rule)
> > > ????? ret = vcap_write_rule(ri);
> > > ????? if (ret)
> > > ????????????? pr_err("%s:%d: rule write error: %d\n", __func__, __LINE__,
> > > ret);
There should be a "goto out;" after the pr_err().
> > > +???? /* Set the counter to zero */
> > > +???? ret = vcap_write_counter(ri, &ctr);
> > > ?out:
> > > ????? mutex_unlock(&ri->admin->lock);
> > > ????? return ret;
> >
regards,
dan carpenter
Hi Dan,
On Thu, 2023-01-05 at 13:58 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the
> content is safe
>
> [ Email re-arranged because I screwed up - dan]
>
> On Thu, Jan 05, 2023 at 11:43:17AM +0100, Steen Hegelund wrote:
>
> > This series was first sent to net, but the response was that I should go
> > into
> > net-next instead, so it is really a first version in net-next.
> >
> > What was your question? I was not able to find it...
>
> Ugh... Oauth2 code (mutt/msmtp) silently ate my email. Sorry.
>
> > > > @@ -1833,6 +1834,8 @@ int vcap_add_rule(struct vcap_rule *rule)
> > > > ret = vcap_write_rule(ri);
> > > > if (ret)
> > > > pr_err("%s:%d: rule write error: %d\n", __func__,
> > > > __LINE__,
> > > > ret);
>
> There should be a "goto out;" after the pr_err().
Indeed - You are right. I will add that in the next series.
>
> > > > + /* Set the counter to zero */
> > > > + ret = vcap_write_counter(ri, &ctr);
> > > > out:
> > > > mutex_unlock(&ri->admin->lock);
> > > > return ret;
> > >
>
> regards,
> dan carpenter
>
Thanks for the feedback.
BR
Steen