From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAEBFC10F25 for ; Mon, 9 Mar 2020 19:17:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3599215A4 for ; Mon, 9 Mar 2020 19:17:26 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1583781446; bh=YCYmIyc2IpvONTi3cH/apHZ9jju9R6enSb2WW6eWfdM=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:List-ID:From; b=rZozkc6pZhpBhso3NU1o3ufNcAZeeDN+KE+IUba3LSwP3pxrfHS8QYSUJHqM5NYV5 MyNRQt1OTpdqZu7CUUNEuFQMoEi6Ks0Ktj7WFvIJOJeZySAgb7jttzllFnjVcZHEQ4 TTW4lc53/Vum9pr0sdSv6DsdjTtTRexEMmxSwW0s= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726157AbgCITR0 (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Mar 2020 15:17:26 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:51858 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725992AbgCITRZ (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Mar 2020 15:17:25 -0400 Received: from kicinski-fedora-PC1C0HJN (unknown [163.114.132.128]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 93D0620848; Mon, 9 Mar 2020 19:17:24 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1583781445; bh=YCYmIyc2IpvONTi3cH/apHZ9jju9R6enSb2WW6eWfdM=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=pLX1wTOyM3mRAGdwcGU+iSlrVS02l9a6F45nwM+TNFcPeDp1krG+pmTraHQXmQ702 +smOv1BQDHTIij5+x25JpZqT2uvERxCYWAUMQtGqYrFN+vr64uMe//MEzmmx2wRQte HW2UPjNiDesUHYw5yn4mUBhcM+fMiT6bvjlPz6S0= Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2020 12:17:22 -0700 From: Jakub Kicinski To: Jiri Pirko Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, saeedm@mellanox.com, leon@kernel.org, michael.chan@broadcom.com, vishal@chelsio.com, jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com, idosch@mellanox.com, aelior@marvell.com, peppe.cavallaro@st.com, alexandre.torgue@st.com, jhs@mojatatu.com, xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com, pablo@netfilter.org, ecree@solarflare.com, mlxsw@mellanox.com Subject: Re: [patch net-next v3 03/10] flow_offload: check for basic action hw stats type Message-ID: <20200309121722.6f536941@kicinski-fedora-PC1C0HJN> In-Reply-To: <20200307065948.GB2210@nanopsycho.orion> References: <20200306132856.6041-1-jiri@resnulli.us> <20200306132856.6041-4-jiri@resnulli.us> <20200306112851.2dc630e7@kicinski-fedora-PC1C0HJN> <20200307065948.GB2210@nanopsycho.orion> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org On Sat, 7 Mar 2020 07:59:48 +0100 Jiri Pirko wrote: > >> +static inline bool > >> +flow_action_hw_stats_types_check(const struct flow_action *action, > >> + struct netlink_ext_ack *extack, > >> + u8 allowed_hw_stats_type) > >> +{ > >> + const struct flow_action_entry *action_entry; > >> + > >> + if (!flow_action_has_entries(action)) > >> + return true; > >> + if (!flow_action_mixed_hw_stats_types_check(action, extack)) > >> + return false; > >> + action_entry = flow_action_first_entry_get(action); > >> + if (!allowed_hw_stats_type && > >> + action_entry->hw_stats_type != FLOW_ACTION_HW_STATS_TYPE_ANY) { > >> + NL_SET_ERR_MSG_MOD(extack, "Driver supports only default HW stats type \"any\""); > >> + return false; > >> + } else if (allowed_hw_stats_type && > >> + action_entry->hw_stats_type != allowed_hw_stats_type) { > > > >Should this be an logical 'and' if we're doing it the bitfield way? > > No. I driver passes allowed_hw_stats_type != 0, means that allowed_hw_stats_type > should be checked against action_entry->hw_stats_type. Right, the "allowed_hw_stats_type &&" is fine. > With bitfield, this is a bit awkward, I didn't figure out to do it > better though. The bitfield passed from user space means any of the set bits, right? Condition would be better as: allowed_hw_stats_type && (allowed_hw_stats_type & entry->hw_stats_type) Otherwise passing more than one bit will not work well, no? Driver can pass IMMEDIATE | DELAYED, action has IMMEDIATE, your condition would reject it.. Same if driver has only one type and user space asks for any of a few. Drivers can't do a straight comparisons either, but: if (act->stats & TYPE1) { /* preferred stats type*/ } else if (act->stats & TYPE2) { /* also supported, lower prio */ } else if (act->Stats & TYPE3) { /* lowest prio */ }