Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 3 May 2019 13:23:28 +0200 | From | Joergen Andreasen <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH net-next 2/3] net: mscc: ocelot: Implement port policers via tc command |
| |
Hi Andrew,
The 05/02/2019 14:32, Andrew Lunn wrote: > External E-Mail > > > Hi Joergen > > > + > > +#define MSCC_RC(expr) \ > > + do { \ > > + int __rc__ = (expr); \ > > + if (__rc__ < 0) \ > > + return __rc__; \ > > + } \ > > + while (0) > > I'm sure checkpatch warned about this. A return inside a macros is a > bad idea. I inherited code doing this, and broke it when adding > locking, because it was not obvious there was a return. >
I saw the warning but I assumed that it wasn't a problem in this small context. The macro will be removed in v2.
> > + > > +/* The following two functions do the same as in iproute2 */ > > +#define TIME_UNITS_PER_SEC 1000000 > > +static unsigned int tc_core_tick2time(unsigned int tick) > > +{ > > + return (tick * (u32)PSCHED_TICKS2NS(1)) / 1000; > > +} > > + > > +static unsigned int tc_calc_xmitsize(u64 rate, unsigned int ticks) > > +{ > > + return div_u64(rate * tc_core_tick2time(ticks), TIME_UNITS_PER_SEC); > > +} > > Should these but put somewhere others can use them? >
It would be nice to put them in a more public place, but I am in doubt where to put them and what to call them.
Maybe they belong in the new file: include/net/tc_act/tc_police.h. Would that be ok?
> > + > > +enum mscc_qos_rate_mode { > > + MSCC_QOS_RATE_MODE_DISABLED, /* Policer/shaper disabled */ > > + MSCC_QOS_RATE_MODE_LINE, /* Measure line rate in kbps incl. IPG */ > > + MSCC_QOS_RATE_MODE_DATA, /* Measures data rate in kbps excl. IPG */ > > + MSCC_QOS_RATE_MODE_FRAME, /* Measures frame rate in fps */ > > + __MSCC_QOS_RATE_MODE_END, > > + NUM_MSCC_QOS_RATE_MODE = __MSCC_QOS_RATE_MODE_END, > > + MSCC_QOS_RATE_MODE_MAX = __MSCC_QOS_RATE_MODE_END - 1, > > +}; > > + > > +/* Round x divided by y to nearest integer. x and y are integers */ > > +#define MSCC_ROUNDING_DIVISION(x, y) (((x) + ((y) / 2)) / (y)) > > linux/kernel.h defines DIV_ROUND_UP(). Maybe add DIV_ROUND_DOWN()? >
This macro is currently not used and I will remove it in v2.
> > + > > +/* Round x divided by y to nearest higher integer. x and y are integers */ > > +#define MSCC_DIV_ROUND_UP(x, y) (((x) + (y) - 1) / (y)) > > DIV_ROUND_UP() ? >
I will use DIV_ROUND_UP() in v2.
> > + /* Limit to maximum values */ > > + pir = min_t(u32, GENMASK(15, 0), pir); > > + cir = min_t(u32, GENMASK(15, 0), cir); > > + pbs = min_t(u32, pbs_max, pbs); > > + cbs = min_t(u32, cbs_max, cbs); > > If it does need to limit, maybe return -EOPNOTSUPP? >
It seems fine to return -EOPBITSUPP here. I will do that in v2.
> > +int ocelot_port_policer_add(struct ocelot_port *port, > > + struct tcf_police *p) > > +{ > > + struct ocelot *ocelot = port->ocelot; > > + struct qos_policer_conf pp; > > + > > + if (!p) > > + return -EINVAL; > > + > > + netdev_dbg(port->dev, > > + "result %d ewma_rate %u burst %lld mtu %u mtu_pktoks %lld\n", > > + p->params->tcfp_result, > > + p->params->tcfp_ewma_rate, > > + p->params->tcfp_burst, > > + p->params->tcfp_mtu, > > + p->params->tcfp_mtu_ptoks); > > + > > + if (p->params->rate_present) > > + netdev_dbg(port->dev, > > + "rate: rate %llu mult %u over %u link %u shift %u\n", > > + p->params->rate.rate_bytes_ps, > > + p->params->rate.mult, > > + p->params->rate.overhead, > > + p->params->rate.linklayer, > > + p->params->rate.shift); > > + > > + if (p->params->peak_present) > > + netdev_dbg(port->dev, > > + "peak: rate %llu mult %u over %u link %u shift %u\n", > > + p->params->peak.rate_bytes_ps, > > + p->params->peak.mult, > > + p->params->peak.overhead, > > + p->params->peak.linklayer, > > + p->params->peak.shift); > > + > > + memset(&pp, 0, sizeof(pp)); > > Rather than memset, you can do: > > struct qos_policer_conf pp = { 0 }; >
I will do as you suggest in v2.
> Andrew >
-- Joergen Andreasen, Microchip
| |