From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [198.175.65.19]) (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 B17A818D for ; Wed, 2 Apr 2025 09:50:25 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.175.65.19 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1743587427; cv=none; b=T1HxDNTsHWkr6yYd6WEYTkI2aRo3mE9QC7mngP2/FJLKim80fE7r4wQEKoGdtplGFvYbQa5qBiYrm8DZ5rCAgIZiokCSMREuTTbLyiYQbOUUjzRoPCrd19rMYqUzwmID1bhsJhpzqBW1+LwyVbyEX1X2TIKoSy66tJp3GWgvc30= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1743587427; c=relaxed/simple; bh=WjJTs6P3ilpPrUnWgbRh9qL9J5SqsxBe+zQ0ZZJnU7w=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=cDP36hExDznXM/BOw6sqYyfHOM3PUs5le502vYsUgjhZ+bX5IVEsd4byxVi4f59zZDlAJAcDwQVJQSRugcSJLSa/XgJca9USHv7CRGcVVUPZcSA9V+Jn1k+tevT+/CMGZSlw7OfJs9txf4Tcp+gn/pOr38y/irE5E/km5mSpUlo= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b=aNSrXIJ7; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.175.65.19 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b="aNSrXIJ7" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1743587425; x=1775123425; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=WjJTs6P3ilpPrUnWgbRh9qL9J5SqsxBe+zQ0ZZJnU7w=; b=aNSrXIJ7EzO877gzVOovevDZOaXcJEzB3VZTuOAt5iy3nuzShEWs8Cfl i12UJG7TRZ+kqAMdqTMbZcVg/x34WSbJgvhj03JcSe4/eb+dhjjYgq+g8 jb8owQqtylOqiDDoNZBDSx0idrT7kJbLnRUDXnwd/G+xmBFvzGaX1SqTF qwm38OGpsTpTGQqYBuJ4edGKLEIT41HMCbey6B1MKfEdhEPbuM/xvcCqD kWWpdFXVGRFy8CixTsCHhMSHTLrLN47u0JgWhzsHjbiy3gIRnXmfvKTu0 uFMW84tBqX6Ascbpa572Zy7mE0ssVpUwaHC6pYaYmEB1KJy30WqRjRWOe Q==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: B5qbNXgKRseu79OLZj0RbA== X-CSE-MsgGUID: hQQfpkUOTI2GZRDo6My6Nw== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6700,10204,11391"; a="44836986" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.14,181,1736841600"; d="scan'208";a="44836986" Received: from fmviesa004.fm.intel.com ([10.60.135.144]) by orvoesa111.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 02 Apr 2025 02:50:25 -0700 X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: R1O/c36IRqWiGrGVwnBIDg== X-CSE-MsgGUID: 0wbVn0ZjRbueDKs7qR9YCQ== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.14,181,1736841600"; d="scan'208";a="131777729" Received: from mev-dev.igk.intel.com ([10.237.112.144]) by fmviesa004-auth.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 02 Apr 2025 02:50:22 -0700 Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2025 11:50:12 +0200 From: Michal Swiatkowski To: Edward Cree Cc: Michal Swiatkowski , edward.cree@amd.com, linux-net-drivers@amd.com, davem@davemloft.net, kuba@kernel.org, edumazet@google.com, pabeni@redhat.com, horms@kernel.org, andrew+netdev@lunn.ch, netdev@vger.kernel.org, Kyungwook Boo Subject: Re: [PATCH net] sfc: fix NULL dereferences in ef100_process_design_param() Message-ID: References: <20250401225439.2401047-1-edward.cree@amd.com> <98a26384-5d6f-d5d2-3ecc-1914a74299eb@gmail.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <98a26384-5d6f-d5d2-3ecc-1914a74299eb@gmail.com> On Wed, Apr 02, 2025 at 09:15:02AM +0100, Edward Cree wrote: > On 02/04/2025 06:17, Michal Swiatkowski wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 01, 2025 at 11:54:39PM +0100, edward.cree@amd.com wrote: > >> - netif_set_tso_max_segs(net_dev, > >> - ESE_EF100_DP_GZ_TSO_MAX_HDR_NUM_SEGS_DEFAULT); > >> + nic_data = efx->nic_data; > >> + netif_set_tso_max_size(efx->net_dev, nic_data->tso_max_payload_len); > >> + netif_set_tso_max_segs(efx->net_dev, nic_data->tso_max_payload_num_segs); > > > > Is it fine to drop default value for max segs? Previously if somehow > > this value wasn't read from HW it was set to default, now it will be 0. > > > > At the beggining of ef100_probe_main() default values for nic_data are > > set. Maybe it is worth to set also this default for max segs? > > As I read it, ef100_probe_main() does set a default for this nic_data > field along with the others, and sets it to exactly this same value. > Sorry, right, I somehow missed it. Reviewed-by: Michal Swiatkowski > confused, > -ed