[dpdk-dev] [PATCH 01/18] net/ixgbe: store SYN filter

Zhao1, Wei wei.zhao1 at intel.com
Mon Dec 26 02:47:56 CET 2016


Hi, Ferruh

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yigit, Ferruh
> Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2016 12:56 AM
> To: Zhao1, Wei <wei.zhao1 at intel.com>; dev at dpdk.org
> Cc: Lu, Wenzhuo <wenzhuo.lu at intel.com>
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 01/18] net/ixgbe: store SYN filter
> 
> On 12/2/2016 10:42 AM, Wei Zhao wrote:
> > From: wei zhao1 <wei.zhao1 at intel.com>
> >
> > Add support for storing SYN filter in SW.
> 
> Do you think does it makes more clear to refer as TCP SYN filter? Or SYN filter
> is clear enough?
> 
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Wenzhuo Lu <wenzhuo.lu at intel.com>
> > Signed-off-by: wei zhao1 <wei.zhao1 at intel.com>
> 
> Can you please update sign-off to your actual name?
> 
> > ---
> >  drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_ethdev.c | 12 ++++++++++--
> > drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_ethdev.h |  2 ++
> >  2 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_ethdev.c
> > b/drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_ethdev.c
> > index edc9b22..7f10cca 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_ethdev.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_ethdev.c
> > @@ -1287,6 +1287,8 @@ eth_ixgbe_dev_init(struct rte_eth_dev *eth_dev)
> >  	memset(filter_info->fivetuple_mask, 0,
> >  	       sizeof(uint32_t) * IXGBE_5TUPLE_ARRAY_SIZE);
> >
> > +	/* initialize SYN filter */
> > +	filter_info->syn_info = 0;
> 
> can it be an option to memset all filter_info? (and of course move list init
> after memset)
> 
> >  	return 0;
> >  }
> >
> > @@ -5509,15 +5511,19 @@ ixgbe_syn_filter_set(struct rte_eth_dev *dev,
> >  			bool add)
> >  {
> >  	struct ixgbe_hw *hw =
> > IXGBE_DEV_PRIVATE_TO_HW(dev->data->dev_private);
> > +	struct ixgbe_filter_info *filter_info =
> > +		IXGBE_DEV_PRIVATE_TO_FILTER_INFO(dev->data-
> >dev_private);
> > +	uint32_t syn_info;
> >  	uint32_t synqf;
> >
> >  	if (filter->queue >= IXGBE_MAX_RX_QUEUE_NUM)
> >  		return -EINVAL;
> >
> > +	syn_info = filter_info->syn_info;
> >  	synqf = IXGBE_READ_REG(hw, IXGBE_SYNQF);
> >
> >  	if (add) {
> > -		if (synqf & IXGBE_SYN_FILTER_ENABLE)
> > +		if (syn_info & IXGBE_SYN_FILTER_ENABLE)
> 
> If these checks will be done on syn_info, shouldn't syn_info be assigned to
> synqf before this. Specially for first usage, synqf may be different than hw
> register.
> 
> Or perhaps can keep continue to use synqf. Since synqf assigned to
> filter_info->syn_info after updated.
> 

ok, this code is alittle vague, in "add" branch synqf will be assigned a new value, so "synqf = IXGBE_READ_REG(hw, IXGBE_SYNQF)" is useless.
synqf read from hw only to be used in "else" branch.so I will make a little code change here.
Thank you for your suggestion.  

> >  			return -EINVAL;
> >  		synqf = (uint32_t)(((filter->queue <<
> IXGBE_SYN_FILTER_QUEUE_SHIFT) &
> >  			IXGBE_SYN_FILTER_QUEUE) |
> IXGBE_SYN_FILTER_ENABLE); @@ -5527,10
> > +5533,12 @@ ixgbe_syn_filter_set(struct rte_eth_dev *dev,
> >  		else
> >  			synqf &= ~IXGBE_SYN_FILTER_SYNQFP;
> >  	} else {
> > -		if (!(synqf & IXGBE_SYN_FILTER_ENABLE))
> > +		if (!(syn_info & IXGBE_SYN_FILTER_ENABLE))
> >  			return -ENOENT;
> >  		synqf &= ~(IXGBE_SYN_FILTER_QUEUE |
> IXGBE_SYN_FILTER_ENABLE);
> >  	}
> > +
> > +	filter_info->syn_info = synqf;
> >  	IXGBE_WRITE_REG(hw, IXGBE_SYNQF, synqf);
> >  	IXGBE_WRITE_FLUSH(hw);
> >  	return 0;
> <...>
> 



More information about the dev mailing list