On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 1:09 PM Somnath Kotur <somnath.ko...@broadcom.com>
wrote:
> +Santosh
>
> On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 12:52 PM David Marchand <david.march...@redhat.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 7:05 AM Somnath Kotur
>> <somnath.ko...@broadcom.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > From: Santoshkumar Karanappa Rastapur <santosh.rasta...@broadcom.com>
>> >
>> > We were trying to fill in more rx extended stats than the size allocated
>> > for stats causing segfault. Fixed this by adding an explicit check.
>> > Rearranged the code to return statistic values in xstats_get as per the
>> > names returned in xstats_get_names.
>> >
>> > Fixes: f55e12f33416 ("net/bnxt: support extended port counters")
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Rahul Gupta <rahul.gu...@broadcom.com>
>> > Signed-off-by: Santoshkumar Karanappa Rastapur <
>> santosh.rasta...@broadcom.com>
>> > Signed-off-by: Somnath Kotur <somnath.ko...@broadcom.com>
>> > ---
>> > drivers/net/bnxt/bnxt_stats.c | 24 ++++++++++++++----------
>> > 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/drivers/net/bnxt/bnxt_stats.c
>> b/drivers/net/bnxt/bnxt_stats.c
>> > index 4e74f8a..69ac2dd 100644
>> > --- a/drivers/net/bnxt/bnxt_stats.c
>> > +++ b/drivers/net/bnxt/bnxt_stats.c
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> > @@ -463,22 +467,22 @@ int bnxt_dev_xstats_get_op(struct rte_eth_dev
>> *eth_dev,
>> > xstats[count].value = rte_le_to_cpu_64(tx_drop_pkts);
>> > count++;
>> >
>> > - for (i = 0; i < tx_port_stats_ext_cnt; i++) {
>> > - uint64_t *tx_stats_ext = (uint64_t
>> *)bp->hw_tx_port_stats_ext;
>> > + for (i = 0; i < rx_port_stats_ext_cnt; i++) {
>> > + uint64_t *rx_stats_ext = (uint64_t
>> *)bp->hw_rx_port_stats_ext;
>> >
>> > xstats[count].value = rte_le_to_cpu_64
>> > - (*(uint64_t *)((char
>> *)tx_stats_ext +
>> > -
>> bnxt_tx_ext_stats_strings[i].offset));
>> > + (*(uint64_t *)((char
>> *)rx_stats_ext +
>> > +
>> bnxt_rx_ext_stats_strings[i].offset));
>> >
>> > count++;
>> > }
>> >
>> > - for (i = 0; i < rx_port_stats_ext_cnt; i++) {
>> > - uint64_t *rx_stats_ext = (uint64_t
>> *)bp->hw_rx_port_stats_ext;
>> > + for (i = 0; i < tx_port_stats_ext_cnt; i++) {
>> > + uint64_t *tx_stats_ext = (uint64_t
>> *)bp->hw_tx_port_stats_ext;
>> >
>> > xstats[count].value = rte_le_to_cpu_64
>> > - (*(uint64_t *)((char
>> *)rx_stats_ext +
>> > -
>> bnxt_rx_ext_stats_strings[i].offset));
>> > + (*(uint64_t *)((char
>> *)tx_stats_ext +
>> > +
>> bnxt_tx_ext_stats_strings[i].offset));
>> >
>> > count++;
>> > }
>> > --
>> > 1.8.3.1
>> >
>>
>> This whole hunk just adds some noise, right? or is there anything fixed
>> in it?
>>
>>
>> --
>> David Marchand
>>
>
In bnxt_dev_xstats_get_names_op, we were filling statistics names in
xstats_names in this order.
bnxt_rx_stats_strings
bnxt_tx_stats_strings
bnxt_rx_ext_stats_strings
bnxt_tx_ext_stats_strings
Where as in bnxt_dev_xstats_get_op, we were returning stats values in
xstats in this order.
bnxt_rx_stats_strings
bnxt_tx_stats_strings
bnxt_tx_ext_stats_strings
bnxt_rx_ext_stats_strings
We were ending up displaying extended Tx stats values against extended Rx
stats names and vice versa.
This above code fixes this order.
Regards
-Santosh
