Re: [PATCHv3 net-next 1/3] sunvnet: upgrade to VIO protocol version 1.6
From: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Date: 2014-09-13 20:18:44
From: David L Stevens <redacted> Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2014 12:01:06 -0400
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
@@ -368,6 +381,8 @@ struct vio_driver_state { char *name; struct vio_driver_ops *ops; + + u64 rmtu; /* remote MTU */ }; #define viodbg(TYPE, f, a...) \
Is this really applicable to devices other than sunvnet? Just keep this attribute in the sunvnet driver "struct vnet_port" private state.
+ /* v1.6 and higher, ACK with desired, supported mode, or NACK */
+ if (vio->ver.major <= 1 && vio->ver.minor >= 6) {...
+ if (vio->ver.major <= 1 && vio->ver.minor < 2)
...
+ /* for version < 1.2, VIO_DRING_MODE = 0x3 and no bitmask */ + if ((vio->ver.major <= 1 && vio->ver.minor < 2) &&
...
+ if (vio->ver.major == 1 && vio->ver.minor < 3) {...
+ } else if (vio->ver.major == 1 && vio->ver.minor == 3) {...
+ } else {...
+ }
...
+ /* for version >= 1.6, ACK packet mode we support */
+ if (vio->ver.major <= 1 && vio->ver.minor >= 6) {
These version tests give me a headache, and some of them accept
impossible things like major version zero. If we only have major
version 1 and later in our version lists, testing things like "major
<= 1" makes no sense at all.
That last test quoted above definitely looks wrong, it should
be testing "major >= 1" if anything if it is trying to test
"version >= 1.6"
Sadly, I expect that we'll have more and more of these version tests
over time. So why not make some generic helpers in the VIO or LDC
layer?
static inline bool vio_version_before(struct vio_driver_state *vio,
u16 major, u16 minor)
{
u32 have = (u32)vio->major << 16 | vio->minor;
u32 want = (u32)major << 16 | minor;
return have < want;
}
static inline bool vio_version_after_eq(struct vio_driver_state *vio,
u16 major, u16 minor)
{
u32 have = (u32)vio->major << 16 | vio->minor;
u32 want = (u32)major << 16 | minor;
return have >= want;
}
Something like that.