lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Apr]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] net: qualcomm: rmnet: Allow partial updates of IFLA_FLAGS
From
Date
On 4/22/21 6:28 PM, subashab@codeaurora.org wrote:
> On 2021-04-22 12:29, Alex Elder wrote:
>> On 4/22/21 1:20 PM, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
>>> The idiomatic way to handle the changelink flags/mask pair seems to be
>>> allow partial updates of the driver's link flags. In contrast the rmnet
>>> driver masks the incoming flags and then use that as the new flags.
>>>
>>> Change the rmnet driver to follow the common scheme, before the
>>> introduction of IFLA_RMNET_FLAGS handling in iproute2 et al.
>>
>> I like this a lot.  It should have been implemented this way
>> to begin with; there's not much point to have the mask if
>> it's only applied to the passed-in value.
>>
>> KS, are you aware of *any* existing user space code that
>> would not work correctly if this were accepted?
>>
>> I.e., the way it was (is), the value passed in *assigns*
>> the data format flags.  But with Bjorn's changes, the
>> data format flags would be *updated* (i.e., any bits not
>> set in the mask field would remain with their previous
>> value).
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Alex Elder <elder@linaro.org>
>
> What rmnet functionality which was broken without this change.
> That doesnt seem to be listed in this patch commit text.

The broken functionality is that RMNet is not using the
value/flag pair in the proper way.

Currently, the RMNet driver assigns the flags value,
and (strangly) applies the mask to that value.

The intent of the value/flag pair interface is to allow
a value to be provided, with a mask of bits that indicate
which bits in the value should be *updated* in the target
field stored in the kernel.

That way, one can *assign* a value (by providing a value
with flag value 0xffffffff), but one can also update one
or any number of bits, preserving existing values.

It means, for example, that a request can preserve
existing settings, while *adding* a receive checksum
offload.

> If this is an enhancement, then patch needs to be targeted to net-next
> instead of net

Bjorn targeted neither net nor net-next. He just posted
the patch. I think it could be either.

-Alex

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-04-23 03:02    [W:0.053 / U:0.192 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site