From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [198.175.65.13]) by mail.toke.dk (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3A158A5C820 for ; Tue, 26 Mar 2024 19:30:32 +0100 (CET) Authentication-Results: mail.toke.dk; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=Intel header.b=nt9WO1Xa DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1711477833; x=1743013833; h=from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:date: message-id:mime-version; bh=uBLkN0mAj3ZSbr4KU4lSaYj97mBcP/vKRcrn/2cfNJo=; b=nt9WO1Xae44JfazZW8OevppGAwt13Dc+xWq19gyCsVmJdwWed0I2YT8P 22uR2GrpEUSbrSnQsiVzHCYe3wgyEJg87TnUxeR1WXyhvphhkOO+82vAX oung9CMKM0gTsNgK2pU9lQXKLlsgHZ5CycWCYo84lBLx4Oq4gvPGcJv5x +dduw71eVCzaDIRRL3y5SqRlUXjwZhHxAyywXcKJUINjSwWUuB2m+wrXX sQOIRQIazGhi3liyDFLo32ZvZoJe6tOlP2xYz7/zuTARQs46nMHAdtpKs iVu6DK0lqZ8302b8y3U5+jo3wi2ggfIXedqGFCwFel8tV8wNLoqk3mxMm w==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: v6Q3LFOsQceYiAOeO1PLMg== X-CSE-MsgGUID: CkdkEhmPSnGVdKD4Kq9zXg== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6600,9927,11025"; a="17692512" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.07,156,1708416000"; d="scan'208";a="17692512" Received: from orviesa003.jf.intel.com ([10.64.159.143]) by orvoesa105.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 26 Mar 2024 11:30:30 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.07,156,1708416000"; d="scan'208";a="20697374" Received: from unknown (HELO vcostago-mobl3) ([10.124.221.236]) by ORVIESA003-auth.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 26 Mar 2024 11:30:29 -0700 From: Vinicius Costa Gomes To: "Song, Yoong Siang" , "Brandeburg, Jesse" , "Nguyen, Anthony L" , "David S . Miller" , Eric Dumazet , Jakub Kicinski , Paolo Abeni , Richard Cochran , Alexei Starovoitov , Daniel Borkmann , Jesper Dangaard Brouer , John Fastabend , Stanislav Fomichev , "Bezdeka, Florian" , Kurt Kanzenbach , "Fijalkowski, Maciej" In-Reply-To: References: <20240325020928.1987947-1-yoong.siang.song@intel.com> <87h6gtpvyn.fsf@intel.com> Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2024 11:30:27 -0700 Message-ID: <871q7wq20s.fsf@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Message-ID-Hash: U7GJGS45XG3MELR2H5KJICYUC3DN4NMJ X-Message-ID-Hash: U7GJGS45XG3MELR2H5KJICYUC3DN4NMJ X-MailFrom: vinicius.gomes@intel.com X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header CC: "intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org" , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "bpf@vger.kernel.org" , "xdp-hints@xdp-project.net" X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9 Precedence: list Subject: [xdp-hints] Re: [PATCH iwl-next,v4 1/1] igc: Add Tx hardware timestamp request for AF_XDP zero-copy packet List-Id: XDP hardware hints design discussion Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: "Song, Yoong Siang" writes: >> >>More a question: you are potentially triggering an interrupt from >>igc_ptp_clear_tx_tstamp() (igc_xsk_wakeup()) which can be called from >>igc_down(). So, how does it work when there's a pending timestamp and >>you remove the igc module? (example of a situation that it might be >>problematic). > > Hi Vinicius, > > Thanks for reviewing the patch. > > There is test_bit(__IGC_DOWN, &adapter->state) checking in > igc_sxk_wakeup(). Since igc_down() will set __IGC_DOWN before > call into igc_ptp_suspend(), so I believe the checking in igc_sxk_wakeup() > should be enough to prevent the situation that you mentioned. > Oh, I missed that one, sorry. Then: Acked-by: Vinicius Costa Gomes Cheers, -- Vinicius