On Mon, Nov 10, 2025 at 04:05:14PM +0800, Zhichao Zeng wrote:
> The statistics contain 40 bits. The lower 32 bits are read first, followed
> by the upper 8 bits.
>
> In some cases, after reading the lower 32 bits, a carry occurs from
> the lower bits, which causes the final statistics to be incorrect.
>
> This commit fixes this issue.
>
> Fixes: a37bde56314d ("net/ice: support statistics")
> Cc: stable@dpdk.org
>
> Signed-off-by: Zhichao Zeng <zhichaox.zeng@intel.com>
>
> ---
> v2: replace single retries with loops
> ---
> drivers/net/intel/ice/ice_ethdev.c | 18 +++++++++++-------
> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/intel/ice/ice_ethdev.c b/drivers/net/intel/ice/ice_ethdev.c
> index 4669eba7c7..016b25c63a 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/intel/ice/ice_ethdev.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/intel/ice/ice_ethdev.c
> @@ -6351,10 +6351,16 @@ ice_stat_update_40(struct ice_hw *hw,
>                   uint64_t *stat)
> {
>        uint64_t new_data;
> +     uint32_t lo_old, hi, lo;
>
> -     new_data = (uint64_t)ICE_READ_REG(hw, loreg);
> -     new_data |= (uint64_t)(ICE_READ_REG(hw, hireg) & ICE_8_BIT_MASK) <<
> -                 ICE_32_BIT_WIDTH;
> +     do {
> +             lo_old = ICE_READ_REG(hw, loreg);
> +             hi = ICE_READ_REG(hw, hireg);
> +             lo = ICE_READ_REG(hw, loreg);
> +     } while (lo_old > lo);
> +
> +     new_data = (uint64_t)lo;
> +     new_data |= (uint64_t)(hi & ICE_8_BIT_MASK) << ICE_32_BIT_WIDTH;
>
>        if (!offset_loaded)
>                *offset = new_data;
> @@ -6363,10 +6369,8 @@ ice_stat_update_40(struct ice_hw *hw,
>                *stat = new_data - *offset;
>        else
>                *stat = (uint64_t)((new_data +
> -                                 ((uint64_t)1 << ICE_40_BIT_WIDTH)) -
> -                                *offset);
> -
> -     *stat &= ICE_40_BIT_MASK;
> +                                     ((uint64_t)1 << ICE_32_BIT_WIDTH))
> +                                - *offset);

This part wasn't in v1, was it? It looks wrong to me, and the original code
looks correct. Given that offset and new_data should both be 40-bit
quantities, any wraparound would be at 40-bits rather than 32-bits no? Can
you explain why we would use a 32-bit shift here?

> }
>
> /**
> --
> 2.34.1
>