| Message ID | 20230228204742.2599151-1-horatiu.vultur@microchip.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted |
| Commit | 81563d8548b0478075c720666be348d4199b8591 |
| Delegated to: | Netdev Maintainers |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [net] net: lan966x: Fix port police support using tc-matchall | expand |
On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 09:47:42PM +0100, Horatiu Vultur wrote: > When the police was removed from the port, then it was trying to > remove the police from the police id and not from the actual > police index. > The police id represents the id of the police and police index > represents the position in HW where the police is situated. > The port police id can be any number while the port police index > is a number based on the port chip port. > Fix this by deleting the police from HW that is situated at the > police index and not police id. > > Fixes: 5390334b59a3 ("net: lan966x: Add port police support using tc-matchall") > Signed-off-by: Horatiu Vultur <horatiu.vultur@microchip.com> Reviewed-by: Simon Horman <simon.horman@corigine.com>
On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 09:47:42PM +0100, Horatiu Vultur wrote: > When the police was removed from the port, then it was trying to > remove the police from the police id and not from the actual > police index. > The police id represents the id of the police and police index > represents the position in HW where the police is situated. > The port police id can be any number while the port police index > is a number based on the port chip port. > Fix this by deleting the police from HW that is situated at the > police index and not police id. > > Fixes: 5390334b59a3 ("net: lan966x: Add port police support using tc-matchall") > Signed-off-by: Horatiu Vultur <horatiu.vultur@microchip.com> > --- > drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/lan966x/lan966x_police.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/lan966x/lan966x_police.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/lan966x/lan966x_police.c > index a9aec900d608d..7d66fe75cd3bf 100644 > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/lan966x/lan966x_police.c > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/lan966x/lan966x_police.c > @@ -194,7 +194,7 @@ int lan966x_police_port_del(struct lan966x_port *port, > return -EINVAL; > } > > - err = lan966x_police_del(port, port->tc.police_id); > + err = lan966x_police_del(port, POL_IDX_PORT + port->chip_port); > if (err) { > NL_SET_ERR_MSG_MOD(extack, > "Failed to add policer to port"); > -- > 2.38.0 > Reviewed-by: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com> but the extack message is also wrong; it says it failed to add the policer, when the operation that failed was a deletion.
Hello: This patch was applied to netdev/net.git (main) by David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>: On Tue, 28 Feb 2023 21:47:42 +0100 you wrote: > When the police was removed from the port, then it was trying to > remove the police from the police id and not from the actual > police index. > The police id represents the id of the police and police index > represents the position in HW where the police is situated. > The port police id can be any number while the port police index > is a number based on the port chip port. > Fix this by deleting the police from HW that is situated at the > police index and not police id. > > [...] Here is the summary with links: - [net] net: lan966x: Fix port police support using tc-matchall https://git.kernel.org/netdev/net/c/81563d8548b0 You are awesome, thank you!
The 03/01/2023 14:27, Vladimir Oltean wrote: Hi Vladimir, > > On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 09:47:42PM +0100, Horatiu Vultur wrote: > > When the police was removed from the port, then it was trying to > > remove the police from the police id and not from the actual > > police index. > > The police id represents the id of the police and police index > > represents the position in HW where the police is situated. > > The port police id can be any number while the port police index > > is a number based on the port chip port. > > Fix this by deleting the police from HW that is situated at the > > police index and not police id. > > > > Fixes: 5390334b59a3 ("net: lan966x: Add port police support using tc-matchall") > > Signed-off-by: Horatiu Vultur <horatiu.vultur@microchip.com> > > --- > > drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/lan966x/lan966x_police.c | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/lan966x/lan966x_police.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/lan966x/lan966x_police.c > > index a9aec900d608d..7d66fe75cd3bf 100644 > > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/lan966x/lan966x_police.c > > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/lan966x/lan966x_police.c > > @@ -194,7 +194,7 @@ int lan966x_police_port_del(struct lan966x_port *port, > > return -EINVAL; > > } > > > > - err = lan966x_police_del(port, port->tc.police_id); > > + err = lan966x_police_del(port, POL_IDX_PORT + port->chip_port); > > if (err) { > > NL_SET_ERR_MSG_MOD(extack, > > "Failed to add policer to port"); > > -- > > 2.38.0 > > > > Reviewed-by: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com> Thanks for the review. > > but the extack message is also wrong; it says it failed to add the > policer, when the operation that failed was a deletion. Good catch, but this err path will never be hit as the function lan966x_police_del always returns 0. I am planning to send a patch when the net-next gets open to actually change the return type of the function 'lan966x_police_del' and then the extack message will be removed.
diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/lan966x/lan966x_police.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/lan966x/lan966x_police.c index a9aec900d608d..7d66fe75cd3bf 100644 --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/lan966x/lan966x_police.c +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/lan966x/lan966x_police.c @@ -194,7 +194,7 @@ int lan966x_police_port_del(struct lan966x_port *port, return -EINVAL; } - err = lan966x_police_del(port, port->tc.police_id); + err = lan966x_police_del(port, POL_IDX_PORT + port->chip_port); if (err) { NL_SET_ERR_MSG_MOD(extack, "Failed to add policer to port");
When the police was removed from the port, then it was trying to remove the police from the police id and not from the actual police index. The police id represents the id of the police and police index represents the position in HW where the police is situated. The port police id can be any number while the port police index is a number based on the port chip port. Fix this by deleting the police from HW that is situated at the police index and not police id. Fixes: 5390334b59a3 ("net: lan966x: Add port police support using tc-matchall") Signed-off-by: Horatiu Vultur <horatiu.vultur@microchip.com> --- drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/lan966x/lan966x_police.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)