lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2023]   [Mar]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH net] net: lan966x: Fix port police support using tc-matchall
    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.


    --
    /Horatiu

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2023-03-27 00:41    [W:3.149 / U:0.312 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site