On 13/06/2025 01:54, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
Migrate to new callbacks added by commit 9bb00786fc61 ("net: ethtool:
add dedicated callbacks for getting and setting rxfh fields").
This driver's RXFH config is read only / fixed so the conversion
is purely factoring out the handling into a helper.
Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
---
drivers/net/ethernet/sfc/falcon/ethtool.c | 51 +++++++++++++----------
1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/sfc/falcon/ethtool.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/sfc/falcon/ethtool.c
index 04766448a545..6685e71ab13f 100644
--- a/drivers/net/ethernet/sfc/falcon/ethtool.c
+++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/sfc/falcon/ethtool.c
@@ -943,6 +943,33 @@ static int ef4_ethtool_get_class_rule(struct ef4_nic *efx,
return rc;
}
+static int
+ef4_ethtool_get_rxfh_fields(struct net_device *net_dev,
+ struct ethtool_rxfh_fields *info)
+{
+ struct ef4_nic *efx = netdev_priv(net_dev);
+ unsigned int min_revision = 0;
+
+ info->data = 0;
+ switch (info->flow_type) {
+ case TCP_V4_FLOW:
+ info->data |= RXH_L4_B_0_1 | RXH_L4_B_2_3;
+ fallthrough;
+ case UDP_V4_FLOW:
+ case SCTP_V4_FLOW:
+ case AH_ESP_V4_FLOW:
+ case IPV4_FLOW:
+ info->data |= RXH_IP_SRC | RXH_IP_DST;
+ min_revision = EF4_REV_FALCON_B0;
+ break;
+ default:
+ break;
+ }
+ if (ef4_nic_rev(efx) < min_revision)
+ info->data = 0;
+ return 0;
So granted that you're only moving code, but looking at this it doesn't
actually make sense, since every path that sets info->data to nonzero
also sets min_revision, so why not just do the ef4_nic_rev() check at
the start? Answer, from git log spelunking, is that when this code was
shared with Siena, EFX_REV_SIENA_A0 supported IPv6 here.
Have a
Reviewed-By: Edward Cree <ecree.xilinx@gmail.com>
... but this patch could be followed-up with a simplification to put
if (ef4_nic_rev(efx) < EF4_REV_FALCON_B0)
return 0;
before the switch and get rid of min_revision.
Falcon is long since end-of-life, so I don't have any NICs and can't run
any tests, which maybe means the smart thing to do is just to leave well
alone and not touch this code beyond your factoring.
*twitches with barely-suppressed urge to fix it anyway*
-ed
PS: I spent about two hours reading device documentation from 2008
because I thought it said Falcon did 4-tuple hashing on UDP too. For
the record: the 'Falcon hash' was broken (in some unspecified way), so
falcon_init_rx_cfg() selects the Toeplitz hash which does indeed only
consume port numbers on these devices if protocol is TCP. And I will
never get that time back :/