> +static int mv88e6xxx_policy_insert(struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip, int port,
> + struct ethtool_rx_flow_spec *fs)
> +{
> + struct ethhdr *mac_entry = &fs->h_u.ether_spec;
> + struct ethhdr *mac_mask = &fs->m_u.ether_spec;
> + enum mv88e6xxx_policy_mapping mapping;
> + enum mv88e6xxx_policy_action action;
> + struct mv88e6xxx_policy *policy;
> + u16 vid = 0;
> + u8 *addr;
> + int err;
> + int id;
> +
> + if (fs->location != RX_CLS_LOC_ANY)
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + if (fs->ring_cookie == RX_CLS_FLOW_DISC)
> + action = MV88E6XXX_POLICY_ACTION_DISCARD;
> + else
> + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> +
> + switch (fs->flow_type & ~FLOW_EXT) {
> + case ETHER_FLOW:
> + if (!is_zero_ether_addr(mac_mask->h_dest) &&
> + is_zero_ether_addr(mac_mask->h_source)) {
> + mapping = MV88E6XXX_POLICY_MAPPING_DA;
> + addr = mac_entry->h_dest;
> + } else if (is_zero_ether_addr(mac_mask->h_dest) &&
> + !is_zero_ether_addr(mac_mask->h_source)) {
> + mapping = MV88E6XXX_POLICY_MAPPING_SA;
> + addr = mac_entry->h_source;
> + } else {
> + /* Cannot support DA and SA mapping in the same rule */
> + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> + }
> + break;
> + default:
> + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> + }
> +
> + if ((fs->flow_type & FLOW_EXT) && fs->m_ext.vlan_tci) {
> + if (fs->m_ext.vlan_tci != 0xffff)
> + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> + vid = be16_to_cpu(fs->h_ext.vlan_tci) & VLAN_VID_MASK;
> + }
> +
> + idr_for_each_entry(&chip->policies, policy, id) {
> + if (policy->port == port && policy->mapping == mapping &&
> + policy->action == action && policy->vid == vid &&
> + ether_addr_equal(policy->addr, addr))
> + return -EEXIST;
> + }
> +
> + policy = devm_kzalloc(chip->dev, sizeof(*policy), GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!policy)
> + return -ENOMEM;
Hi Vivien
I think this might be the first time we have done dynamic memory
allocation in the mv88e6xxx driver. It might even be a first for a DSA
driver?
I'm not saying it is wrong, but maybe we should discuss it.
I assume you are doing this because the ATU entry itself is not
sufficient?
How much memory is involved here, worst case? I assume one struct
mv88e6xxx_policy per ATU entry? Which you think is too much to
allocate as part of chip? I guess most users will never use this
feature, so for most users it would be wasted memory. So i do see the
point for dynamically allocating it.
Thanks
Andrew
