From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (lindbergh.monkeyblade.net [23.128.96.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2326C18AE1 for ; Mon, 30 Oct 2023 15:23:31 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="N/V6oVYv" Received: from mail-ej1-x631.google.com (mail-ej1-x631.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::631]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CA60CA9; Mon, 30 Oct 2023 08:23:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ej1-x631.google.com with SMTP id a640c23a62f3a-9d274222b5dso274021566b.3; Mon, 30 Oct 2023 08:23:29 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1698679408; x=1699284208; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to :cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=eNH80CZxnqUyHpVk9sm9AYdpPQYIATzHj8k0WS+FHSU=; b=N/V6oVYvBAJNH76k2/U90OBTjW7t1T/iI+SGR5mzdiLpF6DsBXAXlbYWxK5UZU0pDM i5pJAhvqZmXdccJVIsRIRVfdNEN6N3mQoRjeKcBc2rJVDp0ZRKCrxlBWmwTBl+NAStXa iBHbP8Mpf6MlYDYTrgUjmeiUNe5NGxjnagar1TkBbQifN8h3sp7xjkyHVCnVUAPpqGE+ jIgd74fdn3zgO6lFU1vFRk1/j7kfO9I2t6+TQWiudC9akKm7Teg1SDcKlYtO8j54FFs/ 5sVkP38+PZUNPhXUkmlVMKZEwZ6SmwbDoiju5euWQtd8JLd5ZrqgkGOqUBW/BE5LgKqt cS5A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1698679408; x=1699284208; h=in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=eNH80CZxnqUyHpVk9sm9AYdpPQYIATzHj8k0WS+FHSU=; b=mFeAzA1/GFkd3bJvj3K0bJUx17agRXBQWA1VJCuQbiiDCJxg8wfVRSf+bMNkoqyTbk LA4NpcV2kZwDV1KbUZ7JOV85K1yqVgdCrGe/dNSJjoTvYuxUQ1dWBdoUtKn83JxigS/8 tBW9COMD4OuGkOX99UkcuouGywbu7gHZRzasdyHNMhGM9XcpqUVYUR/0EuyXblxs3R7g 4MNqB2vn5YpFh/VmxvINScdtSOSZ1PoWefJaaC75RU08+0DWMEpVacFf10kp7b7PPRYt 6lWpnaL09+eehsWLa5Eb+Dkh5aiJ7+9URNnGNjbO0sJT/FbNaQ+KZ1FhkgSI8C4v5N/u h5IQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yz0dCWsvzwqfyLW+SmREOLr0PuMDlWT1g3iWTpoekhkeQ+cX/3S +FnaeXvXUdeDaWYb/9e6NVE= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGS5nNGthSZEJLEA8gIhHr1Cj5VgpSa4w8EbK/pMrU1iBuqRElaTqG0yRemfGMfWVOoSlM0bA== X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:74b:b0:9bd:a738:2bfe with SMTP id xc11-20020a170907074b00b009bda7382bfemr8196716ejb.38.1698679408000; Mon, 30 Oct 2023 08:23:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from skbuf ([188.26.57.160]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id j11-20020a170906050b00b009a193a5acffsm6129522eja.121.2023.10.30.08.23.27 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 30 Oct 2023 08:23:27 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2023 17:23:25 +0200 From: Vladimir Oltean To: Linus Walleij Cc: Andrew Lunn , Florian Fainelli , "David S. Miller" , Eric Dumazet , Jakub Kicinski , Paolo Abeni , netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH net v2] net: dsa: tag_rtl4_a: Bump min packet size Message-ID: <20231030152325.qdpvv4nbczhal35c@skbuf> References: <20231030-fix-rtl8366rb-v2-1-e66e1ef7dbd2@linaro.org> <20231030141623.ufzhb4ttvxi3ukbj@skbuf> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: On Mon, Oct 30, 2023 at 03:37:24PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Mon, Oct 30, 2023 at 3:16 PM Vladimir Oltean wrote: > > > Could you please try to revert the effect of commit 339133f6c318 ("net: > > dsa: tag_rtl4_a: Drop bit 9 from egress frames") by setting that bit in > > the egress tag again? Who knows, maybe it is the bit which tells the > > switch to bypass the forwarding process. > > I have already tried that, it was one of the first things I tried, > just looking over the git log and looking for usual suspects. > > Sadly it has no effect whatsoever, the problem persists :( > > > Or maybe there is a bit in a > > different position which does this. You could try to fill in all bits in > > unknown positions, check that there are no regressions with packet sizes > > < 1496, and then see if that made any changes to packet sizes >= 1496. > > If it did, try to see which bit made the difference. > > Hehe now we're talking :D > > I did something similar before, I think just switching a different bit > every 10 packets or so and running a persistent ping until it succeeds > or not. > > I'll see what I can come up with. > > Yours, > Linus Walleij And the drop reason in ethtool -S also stays unchanged despite all the extra bits set in the tag? It still behaves as if the packet goes through the forwarding path?