Hi, Ferruh > -----Original Message----- > From: Yigit, Ferruh > Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2016 12:56 AM > To: Zhao1, Wei <wei.zh...@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org > Cc: Lu, Wenzhuo <wenzhuo...@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.zh...@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...@intel.com> > > Signed-off-by: wei zhao1 <wei.zh...@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; > <...> >