From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 925A9A0597; Wed, 8 Apr 2020 09:06:29 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B96E1BF9D; Wed, 8 Apr 2020 09:06:28 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mga11.intel.com (mga11.intel.com [192.55.52.93]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17A481BF99; Wed, 8 Apr 2020 09:06:25 +0200 (CEST) IronPort-SDR: I0ELEkwe/3vtc4KQmIo4JiMop7S0Zt58pGD1+DcwYsM3zeNzKDeMdPuukewtPPbUFKVoqKeLIN 2A5lLEub389A== X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from fmsmga005.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.32]) by fmsmga102.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 08 Apr 2020 00:06:24 -0700 IronPort-SDR: 8JovKzaUJr1IQz4vi3QUqPf2zRex5tVtPp3DntDUECWvttLgbyTkqqE9WTG8P17hGjDoGMpWoq oK6q2QrhCh9w== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.72,357,1580803200"; d="scan'208";a="451504678" Received: from yexl-server.sh.intel.com (HELO localhost) ([10.67.117.17]) by fmsmga005.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 08 Apr 2020 00:06:23 -0700 Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2020 15:02:37 +0800 From: Ye Xiaolong To: Qi Zhang Cc: qiming.yang@intel.com, dev@dpdk.org, stable@dpdk.org Message-ID: <20200408070237.GA64243@intel.com> References: <20200407002523.37881-1-qi.z.zhang@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200407002523.37881-1-qi.z.zhang@intel.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28) Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] net/ice/base: remove unnecessary code X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On 04/07, Qi Zhang wrote: >Update a switch rule' action from "to VSI" to "to VSI List" >should only happen when the same rule has been programmed with >a different fwd destination. This is already handled by below >code block: > >m_entry = ice_find_adv_rule_entry(...) >if (m_entry) { > ... > ice_adv_add_update_vsi_list(...) >} > >The following ice_update_pkt_fwd_rule is unnecessary and should be >removed due to: >1) If a switch rule's action is still to VSI, which means, it is > the first time be issued, we don't need to update it "to VSI > List." >2) Actually the implementation does not match the comment, it still > update the rule with "to VSI" action. > >Fixes: fed0c5ca5f19 ("net/ice/base: support programming a new switch recipe") >Cc: stable@dpdk.org > >Signed-off-by: Qi Zhang >--- > drivers/net/ice/base/ice_switch.c | 18 +----------------- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 17 deletions(-) > >diff --git a/drivers/net/ice/base/ice_switch.c b/drivers/net/ice/base/ice_switch.c >index b5aa5abd9..07f8efd65 100644 >--- a/drivers/net/ice/base/ice_switch.c >+++ b/drivers/net/ice/base/ice_switch.c >@@ -6695,24 +6695,8 @@ ice_add_adv_rule(struct ice_hw *hw, struct ice_adv_lkup_elem *lkups, > sw->recp_list[rid].adv_rule = true; > rule_head = &sw->recp_list[rid].filt_rules; > >- if (rinfo->sw_act.fltr_act == ICE_FWD_TO_VSI) { >- struct ice_fltr_info tmp_fltr; >- >- ice_memset(&tmp_fltr, 0, sizeof(tmp_fltr), ICE_NONDMA_MEM); >- tmp_fltr.fltr_rule_id = >- LE16_TO_CPU(s_rule->pdata.lkup_tx_rx.index); >- tmp_fltr.fltr_act = ICE_FWD_TO_VSI; >- tmp_fltr.fwd_id.hw_vsi_id = >- ice_get_hw_vsi_num(hw, vsi_handle); >- tmp_fltr.vsi_handle = vsi_handle; >- /* Update the previous switch rule of "forward to VSI" to >- * "fwd to VSI list" >- */ >- status = ice_update_pkt_fwd_rule(hw, &tmp_fltr); >- if (status) >- goto err_ice_add_adv_rule; >+ if (rinfo->sw_act.fltr_act == ICE_FWD_TO_VSI) > adv_fltr->vsi_count = 1; >- } > > /* Add rule entry to book keeping list */ > LIST_ADD(&adv_fltr->list_entry, rule_head); >-- >2.13.6 > Acked-by: Xiaolong Ye Applied to dpdk-next-net-intel, Thanks.