On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 12:13 PM, Or Gerlitz <gerlitz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 2:42 AM, Saeed Mahameed <sae...@mellanox.com> wrote:
> [...]
>> 9 files changed, 376 insertions(+), 223 deletions(-)
>
> a bit of heavy duty for this sort of sensitive change, should
> investigate if it can be broken a bit
>
yes, hence the RFC.
>> +int mlx5_mpfs_init(struct mlx5_core_dev *dev)
>> +{
>> + int l2table_size = 1 << MLX5_CAP_GEN(dev, log_max_l2_table);
>> + struct mlx5_mpfs *mpfs;
>> +
>> + if (!MLX5_VPORT_MANAGER(dev))
>> + return 0;
>
> In commit 955bc48081805c053 we added
>
> + static bool mlx5e_is_eswitch_vport_mngr(struct mlx5_core_dev *mdev)
> +{
> + return (MLX5_CAP_GEN(mdev, vport_group_manager) &&
> + MLX5_CAP_GEN(mdev, port_type) == MLX5_CAP_PORT_TYPE_ETH);
> +}
> +
>
> and now you add
>
> +#define MLX5_VPORT_MANAGER(mdev) \
> + (MLX5_CAP_GEN(mdev, vport_group_manager) && mlx5_core_is_pf(mdev))
> +
>
> would be good to align things across the place with a pre-patch and
> then use the whatever check
> we need to apply
>
Sure.
> BTW mlx5e_is_eswitch_vport_mngr() should return false in the down
> stream patch when eswitch is compiled out, right?
>
No, vport manager is a vport manager whether it wants to initialize
the eswitch or not.
it is up to the stub function to decide what to do when eswitch is compiled out.
>> +void mlx5_mpfs_cleanup(struct mlx5_core_dev *dev)
>> +{
>> + struct mlx5_mpfs *mpfs = dev->priv.mpfs;
>> +
>> + if (!MLX5_VPORT_MANAGER(dev))
>> + return;
>> +
>> + WARN_ON(!hlist_empty(mpfs->hash));
>
> I don't see any line with WARN_ON that was deleted by this patch, why add
> that?
>
Just to make sure we freed anything on cleanup, for now i will keep
this, i will consider removing this on
final submission.
>> + kfree(mpfs->bitmap);
>> + kfree(mpfs);
>> +}
>> +
>> +int mlx5_mpfs_add_mac(struct mlx5_core_dev *dev, u8 *mac)
>> +{
>
>> + if (!MLX5_VPORT_MANAGER(dev))
>> + return 0;
>> +
>> + if (is_multicast_ether_addr(mac))
>> + return 0;
>
> It would have been much better reviewed and maintained if we can code
> things in a manner under which we don't get here if not appropriate and
> not simulate successful return.
>
Sure, will consider that, i just wanted to avoid ugly indentations in
mlx5e set_rx_mode en_fs.c
>> +int mlx5_mpfs_del_mac(struct mlx5_core_dev *dev, u8 *mac)
>> +{
>
>> + if (!MLX5_VPORT_MANAGER(dev))
>> + return 0;
>> +
>> + if (is_multicast_ether_addr(mac))
>> + return 0;
>
> same comment as for the add_mac call
