From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from galois.linutronix.de (Galois.linutronix.de [193.142.43.55]) (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 7B4FF1F181F for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2026 13:49:32 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=193.142.43.55 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1770126573; cv=none; b=bqoyd+z5V/SxEPPAq6Rld1DuPxz8yo8RrglebXDFnlsulLSEGYC/BndxQp3STFu9934W+r5tNwM9VFg7t/u1s2y8SBJ5buu+ds6KXmB4NImgO+Nwpq8k2aUezjDHXitHxU771kMdV86vXthTnFvZwf8Tg15LvLW5OEc9lDo3An8= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1770126573; c=relaxed/simple; bh=AjEE9wTDa32hZEqKtBrnWaXRGc6+lc4Qyyv/r3OGKPI=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=QR5BTYiEgcRI1ICbmum3tlZskebE/ThxLfaScb6VBaUnyDYWkJXx2cUYzfUgqf599N6TwJdizOsOzk73WzdLX3JRfRAbfq87Xwal7tAEC0sBwXncYgRuJG1z0kFlm2XKXCUHtLAX3kRjEUiM1ciqkdlgyazlFtDmghTGR8yllPc= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linutronix.de; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linutronix.de; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b=EWpF+xY/; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b=NSgHnhC1; arc=none smtp.client-ip=193.142.43.55 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linutronix.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linutronix.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b="EWpF+xY/"; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b="NSgHnhC1" Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2026 14:49:29 +0100 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020; t=1770126570; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=7B5X9WuXXq4lY73aRP+GXwW6TbDtSgszXX4sFtq0GjM=; b=EWpF+xY/cvnuFTzbv/2eDfqHqETD63s3CVB1GHEHX9NzhG1ZNlvK15c97wgUa4/0OjA4/v YEHV/1H2U1HDf0DuH1wWGUae6Gab5G/ZCB0efdkWWuxbVKXqcfJG15xp5JgmTRVwOsEn0Q jxdmNoe2ndT80TcAxU7H0/8dY7XMEZyifnaZV55drtgQ7o92v2rDNSvDTCyPn5WpD+QPAe Rziy62hmtrasPHrR5wdmEtVFsIQxGc+Zcm5lq1WlAsqt5eu5qBsBhbEBCkACFsl8Oynfgh 4dwKv+1za+sPCkpT6I8/w5pr22yUXRB0ei4+68MWDW4sKh4NnlEzbSvI4wMXKw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020e; t=1770126570; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=7B5X9WuXXq4lY73aRP+GXwW6TbDtSgszXX4sFtq0GjM=; b=NSgHnhC1MZGvhRsnTHr+4mzimSSG/gWrVb40SlNVXRLaC/A3qZpFvpd7PYRfvLo7xm5ngG 0hMSHRoEWNxCyOCg== From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior To: Felix Maurer Cc: Simon Horman , netdev@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, edumazet@google.com, kuba@kernel.org, pabeni@redhat.com, jkarrenpalo@gmail.com, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@kernel.org, allison.henderson@oracle.com, petrm@nvidia.com, antonio@openvpn.net, Steffen Lindner Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 4/9] hsr: Implement more robust duplicate discard for PRP Message-ID: <20260203134929.-HomS8WS@linutronix.de> References: <20260128163824.GB172540@kernel.org> <20260202165702.R9PI3JSM@linutronix.de> <20260203115719.cU_6tnal@linutronix.de> 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: quoted-printable In-Reply-To: On 2026-02-03 13:42:48 [+0100], Felix Maurer wrote: > Hm, I'm not sure I follow. Do you argue that the code already in the > patch is incorrect or that it would be incorrect with Simon's > suggestion? The suggested change should have no impact. =E2=80=A6 > I understood Simon's suggestion this way: in the error path, *also* > reset block->time to 0. We'd still return NULL in that case and, > crucially, don't advance the next_block. IMHO, that only makes the data > more consistent (blocks in the buffer that are not in the xarray always > have time=3D0) and prevents that we try to remove a non-existing entry > from the xarray on the next frame when we try again to recycle the > current "next" block. That is correct but should have no visible impact. > Thanks, > Felix >=20 Sebastian