[PATCH net-next 12/13] net/mlx5: E-switch, correct stale VF/PF wording in esw-allowed comments

From: Shay Drory <redacted>

mlx5_esw_hold() and mlx5_eswitch_unblock_ipsec() bail out on
!mlx5_esw_allowed(), and their comments explained that as "a VF has no
eswitch" / "core dev is not a PF". New FW will let a VF act as a nested
e-switch manager - such a VF has an eswitch and passes
mlx5_esw_allowed() - so that equivalence no longer holds. Reword the
comments to describe the actual condition, the device is not an e-switch
manager, with no functional change.

Signed-off-by: Shay Drory <redacted>
Reviewed-by: Moshe Shemesh <redacted>
Reviewed-by: Akiva Goldberger <redacted>
Signed-off-by: Tariq Toukan <tariqt@nvidia.com>
---
 drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/eswitch.c | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/eswitch.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/eswitch.c
index e7561f0f89b0..6f3676c86d3d 100644
--- a/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/eswitch.c
+++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/eswitch.c

@@ -2958,7 +2958,7 @@ bool mlx5_esw_hold(struct mlx5_core_dev *mdev)
 {
 	struct mlx5_eswitch *esw = mdev->priv.eswitch;
 
-	/* e.g. VF doesn't have eswitch so nothing to do */
+	/* Not an eswitch manager, so there is no mode lock to take */
 	if (!mlx5_esw_allowed(esw))
 		return true;
 

@@ -3106,7 +3106,7 @@ void mlx5_eswitch_unblock_ipsec(struct mlx5_core_dev *dev)
 	struct mlx5_eswitch *esw = dev->priv.eswitch;
 
 	if (!mlx5_esw_allowed(esw))
-		/* Failure means no eswitch => core dev is not a PF */
+		/* Not an eswitch manager, so nothing was blocked */
 		return;
 
 	mutex_lock(&esw->state_lock);

-- 
2.44.0