Re: [PATCH RFC net-next 3/4] net/mlx5: Separate between eswitch and MPFS l2 table logic

On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 12:13 PM, Or Gerlitz [off-list ref] wrote:

On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 2:42 AM, Saeed Mahameed [off-list ref] wrote:
[...]

quoted

 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.

quoted

+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.

quoted

+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.

quoted

+       kfree(mpfs->bitmap);
+       kfree(mpfs);
+}
+
+int mlx5_mpfs_add_mac(struct mlx5_core_dev *dev, u8 *mac)
+{

quoted

+       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

quoted

+int mlx5_mpfs_del_mac(struct mlx5_core_dev *dev, u8 *mac)
+{

quoted

+       if (!MLX5_VPORT_MANAGER(dev))
+               return 0;
+
+       if (is_multicast_ether_addr(mac))
+               return 0;

same comment as for the add_mac call