From: Ivan Vecera <ivecera@redhat.com> Date: 2023-10-18 11:27:25
Commit c87c938f62d8f1 ("i40e: Add VF VLAN pruning") added new
PF flag I40E_FLAG_VF_VLAN_PRUNING but its value collides with
existing I40E_FLAG_TOTAL_PORT_SHUTDOWN_ENABLED flag.
Move the affected flag at the end of the flags and fix its value.
Cc: Mateusz Palczewski <redacted>
Signed-off-by: Ivan Vecera <ivecera@redhat.com>
---
drivers/net/ethernet/intel/i40e/i40e.h | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
Commit c87c938f62d8f1 ("i40e: Add VF VLAN pruning") added new
PF flag I40E_FLAG_VF_VLAN_PRUNING but its value collides with
existing I40E_FLAG_TOTAL_PORT_SHUTDOWN_ENABLED flag.
Move the affected flag at the end of the flags and fix its value.
Cc: Mateusz Palczewski <redacted>
Signed-off-by: Ivan Vecera <ivecera@redhat.com>
---
drivers/net/ethernet/intel/i40e/i40e.h | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
From: Simon Horman <horms@kernel.org> Date: 2023-10-19 09:15:29
On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 01:26:20PM +0200, Ivan Vecera wrote:
Commit c87c938f62d8f1 ("i40e: Add VF VLAN pruning") added new
PF flag I40E_FLAG_VF_VLAN_PRUNING but its value collides with
existing I40E_FLAG_TOTAL_PORT_SHUTDOWN_ENABLED flag.
Move the affected flag at the end of the flags and fix its value.
Cc: Mateusz Palczewski <redacted>
Signed-off-by: Ivan Vecera <ivecera@redhat.com>
Hi Ivan,
I agree with the correctness of this patch and that it was
introduced by the cited commit.
However, I do wonder if, as a fix for 'net':
1) The patch description could include some discussion of
what problem is resolved, and, ideally, how I user might
get into such a situation.
2) The following fixes tag is appropriate.
Fixes: c87c938f62d8 ("i40e: Add VF VLAN pruning")
...
From: Ivan Vecera <ivecera@redhat.com> Date: 2023-10-19 16:36:15
On 19. 10. 23 11:15, Simon Horman wrote:
On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 01:26:20PM +0200, Ivan Vecera wrote:
quoted
Commit c87c938f62d8f1 ("i40e: Add VF VLAN pruning") added new
PF flag I40E_FLAG_VF_VLAN_PRUNING but its value collides with
existing I40E_FLAG_TOTAL_PORT_SHUTDOWN_ENABLED flag.
Move the affected flag at the end of the flags and fix its value.
Cc: Mateusz Palczewski <redacted>
Signed-off-by: Ivan Vecera <ivecera@redhat.com>
Hi Ivan,
I agree with the correctness of this patch and that it was
introduced by the cited commit.
However, I do wonder if, as a fix for 'net':
1) The patch description could include some discussion of
what problem is resolved, and, ideally, how I user might
get into such a situation.
2) The following fixes tag is appropriate.
Fixes: c87c938f62d8 ("i40e: Add VF VLAN pruning")
Ahh, thanks Simon! I forgot to add Fixes: tag.
Will fix it by v2 and add the reproducer.
Thanks,
Ivan
From: Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@intel.com> Date: 2023-10-19 19:26:19
On 10/18/2023 5:30 AM, Przemek Kitszel wrote:
On 10/18/23 13:26, Ivan Vecera wrote:
quoted
Commit c87c938f62d8f1 ("i40e: Add VF VLAN pruning") added new
PF flag I40E_FLAG_VF_VLAN_PRUNING but its value collides with
existing I40E_FLAG_TOTAL_PORT_SHUTDOWN_ENABLED flag.
Move the affected flag at the end of the flags and fix its value.
Cc: Mateusz Palczewski <redacted>
Signed-off-by: Ivan Vecera <ivecera@redhat.com>
---
drivers/net/ethernet/intel/i40e/i40e.h | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
such mistake happened only because list of flags is dispersed so much :/
Better yet if we didn't hard-code the bits, and instead defined them via
an enumeration so that its not possible :D These aren't even ABI so
there's not a backwards compatibility risk either.
Thanks,
Jake