Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH iwl-net v2] idpf: add missing cpu_to_le32 in idpf_tx_splitq_build_flow_desc

Marcin Szycik wrote:
> 
> 
> On 06/08/2026 16:19, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> > Marcin Szycik wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 03/08/2026 23:06, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> >>> From: Willem de Bruijn <[email protected]>
> >>>
> >>> idpf_tx_splitq_build_flow_desc performs a 32-bit store to &cmd_dtype
> >>> to set the 8-bit cmd_dtype and zero the adjacent 3-byte timestamp
> >>> field in a single operation.
> >>>
> >>> Descriptors are in little endian. Add missing cpu_to_le32 and cast to
> >>> __le32 to ensure the fields are written correctly also on big endian
> >>> platforms.
> >>>
> >>> Fixes: 1a49cf814fe1 ("idpf: add Tx timestamp flows")
> >>> Signed-off-by: Willem de Bruijn <[email protected]>
> >>> Reviewed-by: Tony Nguyen <[email protected]>
> >>>
> >>> ---
> >>>
> >>> Changes
> >>>   v1 -> v2
> >>>   - add Fixes tag, Tony's Reviewed-by and Cc: [email protected]
> >>>   v1: https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/[email protected]/
> >>> ---
> >>>  drivers/net/ethernet/intel/idpf/idpf_txrx.c | 2 +-
> >>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/idpf/idpf_txrx.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/idpf/idpf_txrx.c
> >>> index c724d429a7aa..91ca75e45463 100644
> >>> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/idpf/idpf_txrx.c
> >>> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/idpf/idpf_txrx.c
> >>> @@ -2408,7 +2408,7 @@ void idpf_tx_splitq_build_flow_desc(union idpf_tx_flex_desc *desc,
> >>>  				    struct idpf_tx_splitq_params *params,
> >>>  				    u16 td_cmd, u16 size)
> >>>  {
> >>> -	*(u32 *)&desc->flow.qw1.cmd_dtype = (u8)(params->dtype | td_cmd);
> >>> +	*(__le32 *)&desc->flow.qw1.cmd_dtype = cpu_to_le32((u8)(params->dtype | td_cmd));
> >>
> >> While it technically works, I find it unreadable. Looking at this line
> >> without reading commit msg, it looks like a bug where a 4-byte value is
> >> written to u8 field. The intent to zero an adjacent, unrelated field is
> >> not clear. Consider assigning these 4 fields manually, or adding a
> >> comment/function doc.
> > 
> > This is a bug fix, which generally should be the smallest surgical
> > change only.
> 
> Agreed.
> > That said, I do agree on the style, and a follow-up for net-next will
> > clean that up too:
> > 
> > 	@@ -2408,7 +2410,12 @@ void idpf_tx_splitq_build_flow_desc(union idpf_tx_flex_desc *desc,
> > 					    struct idpf_tx_splitq_params *params,
> > 					    u16 td_cmd, u16 size)
> > 	 {
> > 	-       *(__le32 *)&desc->flow.qw1.cmd_dtype = cpu_to_le32((u8)(params->dtype | td_cmd));
> > 	+       desc->flow.qw1.cmd_dtype = (u8)(params->dtype | td_cmd);
> > 	+
> > 	+       desc->flow.qw1.ts[0] = params->offload.desc_ts[0];
> > 	+       desc->flow.qw1.ts[1] = params->offload.desc_ts[1];
> > 	+       desc->flow.qw1.ts[2] = params->offload.desc_ts[2];
> > 
> > The fix is queued. If there is consensus, I can respin. But given that
> > we will clean this up in net-next properly, my preference is to keep
> > the minimal fix as is.
> 
> I'm fine with this.

Great.

> Was the cleanup patch already posted to next?

Not yet. I'll try to send the series later today.

It will have a (trivial) conflict with this line. But I will likely
need to respin again, so don't want t wait for that (and the merge
window).