Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/4] net/bnxt: fix extended port counter statistics

[David Marchand <david.marchand@redhat.com>]

On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 7:05 AM Somnath Kotur
<somnath.kotur@broadcom.com> wrote:
>
> From: Santoshkumar Karanappa Rastapur <santosh.rastapur@broadcom.com>
>
> We were trying to fill in more rx extended stats than the size allocated
> for stats causing segfault. Fixed this by adding an explicit check.
> Rearranged the code to return statistic values in xstats_get as per the
> names returned in xstats_get_names.
>
> Fixes: f55e12f33416 ("net/bnxt: support extended port counters")
>
> Signed-off-by: Rahul Gupta <rahul.gupta@broadcom.com>
> Signed-off-by: Santoshkumar Karanappa Rastapur <santosh.rastapur@broadcom.com>
> Signed-off-by: Somnath Kotur <somnath.kotur@broadcom.com>
> ---
>  drivers/net/bnxt/bnxt_stats.c | 24 ++++++++++++++----------
>  1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/bnxt/bnxt_stats.c b/drivers/net/bnxt/bnxt_stats.c
> index 4e74f8a..69ac2dd 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/bnxt/bnxt_stats.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/bnxt/bnxt_stats.c

[snip]

> @@ -463,22 +467,22 @@ int bnxt_dev_xstats_get_op(struct rte_eth_dev *eth_dev,
>         xstats[count].value = rte_le_to_cpu_64(tx_drop_pkts);
>         count++;
>
> -       for (i = 0; i < tx_port_stats_ext_cnt; i++) {
> -               uint64_t *tx_stats_ext = (uint64_t *)bp->hw_tx_port_stats_ext;
> +       for (i = 0; i < rx_port_stats_ext_cnt; i++) {
> +               uint64_t *rx_stats_ext = (uint64_t *)bp->hw_rx_port_stats_ext;
>
>                 xstats[count].value = rte_le_to_cpu_64
> -                                       (*(uint64_t *)((char *)tx_stats_ext +
> -                                        bnxt_tx_ext_stats_strings[i].offset));
> +                                       (*(uint64_t *)((char *)rx_stats_ext +
> +                                        bnxt_rx_ext_stats_strings[i].offset));
>
>                 count++;
>         }
>
> -       for (i = 0; i < rx_port_stats_ext_cnt; i++) {
> -               uint64_t *rx_stats_ext = (uint64_t *)bp->hw_rx_port_stats_ext;
> +       for (i = 0; i < tx_port_stats_ext_cnt; i++) {
> +               uint64_t *tx_stats_ext = (uint64_t *)bp->hw_tx_port_stats_ext;
>
>                 xstats[count].value = rte_le_to_cpu_64
> -                                       (*(uint64_t *)((char *)rx_stats_ext +
> -                                        bnxt_rx_ext_stats_strings[i].offset));
> +                                       (*(uint64_t *)((char *)tx_stats_ext +
> +                                        bnxt_tx_ext_stats_strings[i].offset));
>
>                 count++;
>         }
> --
> 1.8.3.1
>

This whole hunk just adds some noise, right? or is there anything fixed in it?


-- 
David Marchand