Re: [E1000 05/05]: Secondary unicast address support

[Patrick McHardy]

Kok, Auke wrote:

Patrick McHardy wrote:

@@ -2449,9 +2450,16 @@ e1000_set_multi(struct net_device *netdev)
         rctl |= (E1000_RCTL_UPE | E1000_RCTL_MPE);
     } else if (netdev->flags & IFF_ALLMULTI) {
         rctl |= E1000_RCTL_MPE;
-        rctl &= ~E1000_RCTL_UPE;
     } else {
-        rctl &= ~(E1000_RCTL_UPE | E1000_RCTL_MPE);
+        rctl &= ~E1000_RCTL_MPE;
+    }
+
+    uc_ptr = NULL;
+    if (netdev->uc_count > rar_entries - 1) {
+        rctl |= E1000_RCTL_UPE;
+    } else if (!(netdev->flags & IFF_PROMISC)) {
+        rctl &= ~E1000_RCTL_UPE;
+        uc_ptr = netdev->uc_list;
     }

E1000_WRITE_REG(hw, RCTL, rctl);

@@ -2461,7 +2469,10 @@ e1000_set_multi(struct net_device *netdev)
     if (hw->mac_type == e1000_82542_rev2_0)
         e1000_enter_82542_rst(adapter);

- /* load the first 14 multicast address into the exact filters 1-14

+    /* load the first 14 addresses into the exact filters 1-14. Unicast
+     * addresses take precedence to avoid disabling unicast filtering
+     * when possible.
+     *
      * RAR 0 is used for the station MAC adddress
      * if there are not 14 addresses, go ahead and clear the filters
      * -- with 82571 controllers only 0-13 entries are filled here
@@ -2469,8 +2480,11 @@ e1000_set_multi(struct net_device *netdev)
     mc_ptr = netdev->mc_list;

for (i = 1; i < rar_entries; i++) {

-        if (mc_ptr) {
-            e1000_rar_set(hw, mc_ptr->dmi_addr, i);
+        if (uc_ptr) {
+            e1000_rar_set(hw, uc_ptr->da_addr, i);
+            uc_ptr = uc_ptr->next;
+        } else if (mc_ptr) {
+            e1000_rar_set(hw, mc_ptr->da_addr, i);
             mc_ptr = mc_ptr->next;
         } else {
             E1000_WRITE_REG_ARRAY(hw, RA, i << 1, 0);
@@ -2479,6 +2493,7 @@ e1000_set_multi(struct net_device *netdev)
             E1000_WRITE_FLUSH(hw);
         }
     }
+    WARN_ON(uc_ptr != NULL);

noted. I'm (like a lot of people) on the road and still need to dig into this deeper.

Please take your time, this was mainly an example and for testing.
If its OK I wouldn't object to you applying it of course :)

I think it's OK for as far as I can see, except the WARN_ON, can't we pre-check to see if we have enough room in the rar_entries first?

It does, the WARN_ON would only trigger if I made a mistake:

+    if (netdev->uc_count > rar_entries - 1) {


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html