> -----Original Message-----
> From: Zhao1, Wei
> Sent: Monday, April 9, 2018 4:38 PM
> To: dev@dpdk.org
> Cc: sta...@dpdk.org; Zhang, Qi Z <qi.z.zh...@intel.com>; Zhao1, Wei
> <wei.zh...@intel.com>
> Subject: [PATCH v2] net/i40e: fix flow RSS queue index check error
> 
> There is an error in queue index check for RSS queue region configuration.If
> the queue index is not continuous sequence for RSS, but queue region index is
> continuous sequence, in this case we can not use the old method for queue
> index check.
> This patch also add comment for flow rss parse function in order to explain
> some important info.
> 
> Fixes: ecad87d22383 ("net/i40e: move RSS to flow API")
> Signed-off-by: Wei Zhao <wei.zh...@intel.com>
> Tested-by: Peng Yuan <yuan.p...@intel.com>
> 
> ---
> 
> v2:
> -merge this with another patch for function comment, add git log info.
> ---
>  drivers/net/i40e/i40e_flow.c | 32 +++++++++++++++++++++-----------
>  1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/net/i40e/i40e_flow.c b/drivers/net/i40e/i40e_flow.c index
> f4d08bb..40f15c2 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/i40e/i40e_flow.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/i40e/i40e_flow.c
> @@ -4171,6 +4171,19 @@ i40e_flow_parse_rss_pattern(__rte_unused struct
> rte_eth_dev *dev,
>       return 0;
>  }
> 
> +/**
> + * This function is used to parse rss queue index, total queue number
> +and
> + * hash functions, If the purpose of this configuration is for queue
> +region
> + * configuration, it will set queue_region_conf flag to TRUE, else to FALSE.
> + * In queue region configuration, it also need to parse hardware
> +flowtype
> + * and user_priority from configuration, it will also cheeck the
> +validity
> + * of these parameters. For example, The queue region sizes should
> + * be any of the following values: 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, the
> + * hw_flowtype or PCTYPE max index should be 63, the user priority
> + * max index should be 7, and so on. And also, queue index should be
> + * continuous sequence and queue region index should be part of rss
> + * queue index for this port.
> + */
>  static int
>  i40e_flow_parse_rss_action(struct rte_eth_dev *dev,
>                           const struct rte_flow_action *actions, @@ -4240,6
> +4253,14 @@ i40e_flow_parse_rss_action(struct rte_eth_dev *dev,
>                               return -rte_errno;
>                       }
>               }
> +
> +             if (rss_info->num < rss->num) {
> +                     rte_flow_error_set(error, EINVAL,
> +                             RTE_FLOW_ERROR_TYPE_ACTION,
> +                             act,
> +                             "no valid queues");
> +                     return -rte_errno;
> +             }
>       }
> 
>       for (n = 0; n < conf_info->queue_region_number; n++) { @@ -4264,17
> +4285,6 @@ i40e_flow_parse_rss_action(struct rte_eth_dev *dev,
>                               return -rte_errno;
>                       }
> 
> -                     if (rss_info->num < rss->num ||
> -                             rss->queue[0] < rss_info->queue[0] ||
> -                             (rss->queue[0] + rss->num >
> -                                     rss_info->num + rss_info->queue[0])) {
> -                             rte_flow_error_set(error, EINVAL,
> -                                     RTE_FLOW_ERROR_TYPE_ACTION,
> -                                     act,
> -                                     "no valid queues");
> -                             return -rte_errno;
> -                     }

Is this a code clean?
I didn't see anything wrong with the code you removed, but they just looks 
redundant.
Btw why you still check (rss_info->num < rss->num) ?, 
previous, I think you already iterate all rss queue to make sure they are 
matched by a rss_info queue
so it already proved rss_info->num >= rss->num.


>                       for (i = 0; i < info->queue_region_number; i++) {
>                               if (info->region[i].queue_num == rss->num &&
>                                       info->region[i].queue_start_index ==
> --
> 2.7.5

Reply via email to