Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-101665-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.48.161 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.48.161;
Message-ID: <3f934c7b-867c-4550-93ea-4f567807fa98@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2024 16:15:51 +0100
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] i40e: Enforce software interrupt during busy-poll
 exit
To: Michal Schmidt <mschmidt@redhat.com>
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, pawel.chmielewski@intel.com,
 aleksandr.loktionov@intel.com, Hugo Ferreira <hferreir@redhat.com>,
 Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@intel.com>,
 Tony Nguyen <anthony.l.nguyen@intel.com>,
 "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
 Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
 "moderated list:INTEL ETHERNET DRIVERS" <intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org>,
 open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
References: <20240313125457.19475-1-ivecera@redhat.com>
 <CADEbmW3NQ7SQpccOqTD=p_czpBbOY=41kS7krwx2ZEDmFfcgrg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Ivan Vecera <ivecera@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <CADEbmW3NQ7SQpccOqTD=p_czpBbOY=41kS7krwx2ZEDmFfcgrg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


On 13. 03. 24 14:47, Michal Schmidt wrote:
>> -/* a small macro to shorten up some long lines */
>> -#define INTREG I40E_PFINT_DYN_CTLN
>> +static inline u32 i40e_buildreg_swint(int type)
>> +{
>> +       u32 val;
>> +
>> +       /* 1. Enable the interrupt
>> +        * 2. Do not modify any ITR interval
>> +        * 3. Trigger a SW interrupt specified by type
>> +        */
>> +       val = I40E_PFINT_DYN_CTLN_INTENA_MASK |
>> +             I40E_PFINT_DYN_CTLN_ITR_INDX_MASK | /* set noitr */
>> +             I40E_PFINT_DYN_CTLN_SWINT_TRIG_MASK |
>> +             I40E_PFINT_DYN_CTLN_SW_ITR_INDX_ENA_MASK |
>> +             FIELD_PREP(I40E_PFINT_DYN_CTLN_SW_ITR_INDX_MASK, type);
>> +
>> +       return val;
>> +}
> This function is called only from one place and with a constant
> argument. Does it  really need to be a function, as opposed to a
> constant? Or are you going to add more callers soon?

This can be reused also from i40e_force_wb() but I didn't want to make 
such refactors in this fix. Lets do it later in -next.

Ivan