[PATCH net-next 02/10] net: microchip: sparx5: Clear rule counter even if lookup is disabled

[Dan Carpenter]

On Mon, Feb 13, 2023 at 01:44:35PM +0100, Steen Hegelund wrote:
> > > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/vcap/vcap_api_kunit.c
> > > b/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/vcap/vcap_api_kunit.c
> > > index b2753aac8ad2..0a1d4d740567 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/vcap/vcap_api_kunit.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/vcap/vcap_api_kunit.c
> > > @@ -1337,8 +1337,8 @@ static void vcap_api_encode_rule_test(struct kunit
> > > *test)
> > >       u32 port_mask_rng_mask = 0x0f;
> > >       u32 igr_port_mask_value = 0xffabcd01;
> > >       u32 igr_port_mask_mask = ~0;
> > > -     /* counter is written as the last operation */
> > > -     u32 expwriteaddr[] = {792, 793, 794, 795, 796, 797, 792};
> > > +     /* counter is written as the first operation */
> > > +     u32 expwriteaddr[] = {792, 792, 793, 794, 795, 796, 797};
> > 
> > So this moves 792 from the last to the first.  I would have expected
> > that that would mean that we had to do something like this as well:
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/vcap/vcap_api_kunit.c
> > b/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/vcap/vcap_api_kunit.c
> > index b2753aac8ad2..4d36fad0acab 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/vcap/vcap_api_kunit.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/vcap/vcap_api_kunit.c
> > @@ -1400,7 +1400,7 @@ static void vcap_api_encode_rule_test(struct kunit
> > *test)
> >         /* Add rule with write callback */
> >         ret = vcap_add_rule(rule);
> >         KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 0, ret);
> > -       KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 792, is2_admin.last_used_addr);
> > +       KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 797, is2_admin.last_used_addr);
> >         for (idx = 0; idx < ARRAY_SIZE(expwriteaddr); ++idx)
> >                 KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, expwriteaddr[idx],
> > test_updateaddr[idx]);
> > 
> > 
> > But I couldn't really figure out how the .last_used_addr stuff works.
> > And presumably fixing this unit test is the point of the patch...
> 
> It is just the array of addresses written to in the order that they are written,
> so for the visibility I would like to keep it as an array.
> 

My question was likely noise to begin with, but it's not clear that I
phrased it well.  I'm asking that since 797 is now the last element in
the array, I expected that the KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ() test for last_used_addr
would have to be changed to 797 as well.

regards,
dan carpenter