[net PATCH v2] octeon_ep: Clear VF info at PF when VF driver is removed

When a VF (Virtual Function) driver is removed, the PF (Physical Function)
driver continues to retain stale VF-specific information. This can lead to
inconsistencies or unexpected behavior when the VF is re-initialized or
reassigned.

This patch ensures that the PF driver clears the corresponding VF info
when the VF driver is removed, maintaining a clean state and preventing
potential issues.

Fixes: cde29af9e68e ("octeon_ep: add PF-VF mailbox communication")
Signed-off-by: Sathesh B Edara <sedara@marvell.com>
---
Changes:
V2:
  - Commit header format corrected.

 drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/octeon_ep/octep_pfvf_mbox.c | 2 ++
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)

diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/octeon_ep/octep_pfvf_mbox.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/octeon_ep/octep_pfvf_mbox.c
index ebecdd29f3bd..f2759d2073d1 100644
--- a/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/octeon_ep/octep_pfvf_mbox.c
+++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/octeon_ep/octep_pfvf_mbox.c

@@ -205,6 +205,8 @@ static void octep_pfvf_dev_remove(struct octep_device *oct,  u32 vf_id,
 {
 	int err;
 
+	/* Reset VF-specific information maintained by the PF */
+	memset(&oct->vf_info[vf_id], 0, sizeof(struct octep_pfvf_info));
 	err = octep_ctrl_net_dev_remove(oct, vf_id);
 	if (err) {
 		rsp->s.type = OCTEP_PFVF_MBOX_TYPE_RSP_NACK;

-- 
2.36.0

On Tue, Sep 16, 2025 at 06:12:25AM -0700, Sathesh B Edara wrote:

When a VF (Virtual Function) driver is removed, the PF (Physical Function)
driver continues to retain stale VF-specific information. This can lead to
inconsistencies or unexpected behavior when the VF is re-initialized or
reassigned.

This patch ensures that the PF driver clears the corresponding VF info
when the VF driver is removed, maintaining a clean state and preventing
potential issues.

Fixes: cde29af9e68e ("octeon_ep: add PF-VF mailbox communication")
Signed-off-by: Sathesh B Edara <sedara@marvell.com>
---
Changes:
V2:
  - Commit header format corrected.

Hi,

I feel that I must be missing something terribly obvious.
But this patch seems to be a subset of the one at the link below.

* [net PATCH v2] octeon_ep: fix VF MAC address lifecycle handling
  https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20250916133207.21737-1-sedara@marvell.com/

On Tue, Sep 16, 2025 at 06:12:25AM -0700, Sathesh B Edara wrote:

quoted

When a VF (Virtual Function) driver is removed, the PF (Physical
Function) driver continues to retain stale VF-specific information.
This can lead to inconsistencies or unexpected behavior when the VF is
re-initialized or reassigned.

This patch ensures that the PF driver clears the corresponding VF info
when the VF driver is removed, maintaining a clean state and
preventing potential issues.

Fixes: cde29af9e68e ("octeon_ep: add PF-VF mailbox communication")
Signed-off-by: Sathesh B Edara <sedara@marvell.com>
---
Changes:
V2:
  - Commit header format corrected.

Hi,

I feel that I must be missing something terribly obvious.
But this patch seems to be a subset of the one at the link below.

You're absolutely right — apologies for the confusion. I mistakenly sent the wrong patch and so marked its state as 'Not Applicable'.
 Please disregard this patch.

On Wed, Sep 17, 2025 at 12:24:22PM +0000, Sathesh B Edara wrote:

quoted

On Tue, Sep 16, 2025 at 06:12:25AM -0700, Sathesh B Edara wrote:

quoted

When a VF (Virtual Function) driver is removed, the PF (Physical
Function) driver continues to retain stale VF-specific information.
This can lead to inconsistencies or unexpected behavior when the VF is
re-initialized or reassigned.

This patch ensures that the PF driver clears the corresponding VF info
when the VF driver is removed, maintaining a clean state and
preventing potential issues.

Fixes: cde29af9e68e ("octeon_ep: add PF-VF mailbox communication")
Signed-off-by: Sathesh B Edara <sedara@marvell.com>
---
Changes:
V2:
  - Commit header format corrected.

Hi,

I feel that I must be missing something terribly obvious.
But this patch seems to be a subset of the one at the link below.

You're absolutely right — apologies for the confusion. I mistakenly sent the wrong patch and so marked its state as 'Not Applicable'.
 Please disregard this patch.

Thanks, understood.