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

[Somnath Kotur <somnath.kotur@broadcom.com>]

+Santosh

On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 12:52 PM David Marchand <david.marchand@redhat.com>
wrote:

> 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
>