On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 09:17:12AM +0800, shenjian (K) wrote:
在 2021/11/10 6:32, Andrew Lunn 写道:
- if ((netdev->features & NETIF_F_HW_TC) > (features & NETIF_F_HW_TC) &&
- if ((netdev_active_features_test_bit(netdev, NETIF_F_HW_TC_BIT) >
netdev_features_test_bit(NETIF_F_NTUPLE_BIT, features)) &&Using > is interesting.
will use
if (netdev_active_features_test_bit(netdev, NETIF_F_HW_TC_BIT) && !netdev_features_test_bit(netdev, NETIF_F_HW_TC_BIT))
instead.
I don't think it needs changing. It is just unusual. I had to think about it, a while, and i was not initial sure it would still work.
But where did NETIF_F_NTUPLE_BIT come from?
Thanks for catching this!
- netdev->features |= NETIF_F_HW_VLAN_CTAG_FILTER |
NETIF_F_HW_VLAN_CTAG_TX | NETIF_F_HW_VLAN_CTAG_RX |NETIF_F_RXCSUM | NETIF_F_SG | NETIF_F_GSO |NETIF_F_GRO | NETIF_F_TSO | NETIF_F_TSO6 | NETIF_F_GSO_GRE |NETIF_F_GSO_GRE_CSUM | NETIF_F_GSO_UDP_TUNNEL |NETIF_F_SCTP_CRC | NETIF_F_FRAGLIST;
- netdev_features_zero(&features);
- netdev_features_set_array(hns3_default_features_array,
ARRAY_SIZE(hns3_default_features_array),&features);The original code is netdev->features |= so it is appending these bits. Yet the first thing the new code does is zero features?
Andrew.
The features is a local variable, the change for netdev->active_features is later, by calling
netdev_active_features_direct_or(netdev, features);
O.K. This and the NETIF_F_NTPLE_BIT points towards another issue. The new API looks O.K. to me and we need to encourage more people to review it. This patch allows us to see where you are going with the change, and i think it is O.K.
However, you are about to modify a large number of files to swap to this new API. Accidentally changing NETIF_F_HW_TC to NETIF_F_NTUPLE_BIT is unlikely to be noticed in review given the size of the change you are about to make. Changing the structure of the code to later call netdev_active_features_direct_or() is going to be messy. In order to have confidence you are not introducing a lot of new bugs we are going to want to see the semantic patches which make all the needed changes. So while waiting for further reviews, i suggest you are start on the semantic patches. It could also be that you want to modify the proposed API in minor ways to make it easier to write the semantic patches.
Andrew