On Fri, 1 Mar 2019 08:28:49 -0800
Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicin...@netronome.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Mar 2019 12:31:08 +0100, Maciej Fijalkowski wrote:
> > On Thu, 28 Feb 2019 19:06:45 -0800
> > Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicin...@netronome.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, 28 Feb 2019 13:54:38 -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > > > @@ -12140,12 +12144,14 @@ static int i40e_xdp(struct net_device *dev,
> > > > struct i40e_netdev_priv *np = netdev_priv(dev);
> > > > struct i40e_vsi *vsi = np->vsi;
> > > >
> > > > - if (vsi->type != I40E_VSI_MAIN)
> > > > + if (vsi->type != I40E_VSI_MAIN) {
> > > > + NL_SET_ERR_MSG_MOD(xdp->extack, "XDP not allowed on
> > > > VF");
> > >
> > > Is that right? Intel tends to have separate drivers for VFs, I think
> > > the i40evf got renamed to iavf.
> > >
> > Good catch, this sanity check is to make sure that XDP is being enabled on
> > main
> > VSI of PF, not for example the VSI dedicated for Flow Director management
> > (I40E_VSI_FDIR). Besides that, vsi->type != I40E_VSI_MAIN doesn't yield the
> > I40E_VSI_SRIOV type.
> >
> > So it would be better to have an error message like "XDP is not allowed on
> > VSIs
> > other than main VSI".
> >
> > Thoughts?
>
> Do the other VSI types have netdevs? If they do this may be hard to
> understand (unless Intel's manuals refer to VSI and users know what
> that is).
>
> If there is no netdev on other VSIs perhaps this "should never happen"
> and we can convert it to a WARN_ON()?
I was just making a best guess based on similar checks elsewhere in the
code as to the correct error message
