Message-ID: <49499671-eef7-0ff1-03c8-e391cc8b225e@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 20 Dec 2022 15:58:33 +0800
From:   Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
To:     Si-Wei Liu <si-wei.liu@...cle.com>, Eli Cohen <elic@...dia.com>
Cc:     mst@...hat.com, parav@...dia.com,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Cindy Lu <lulu@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/4] vdpa: show dev config as-is in "vdpa dev show"
 output


在 2022/10/29 07:23, Si-Wei Liu 写道:
>
>
> On 10/27/2022 1:47 AM, Jason Wang wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 27, 2022 at 2:31 PM Si-Wei Liu <si-wei.liu@...cle.com> 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/25/2022 9:44 PM, Jason Wang wrote:
>>>> 在 2022/10/26 09:10, Si-Wei Liu 写道:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 10/24/2022 7:24 PM, Jason Wang wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 3:14 AM Si-Wei Liu<si-wei.liu@...cle.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/24/2022 1:40 AM, Jason Wang wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sat, Oct 22, 2022 at 7:49 AM Si-Wei Liu<si-wei.liu@...cle.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Live migration of vdpa would typically require re-instate vdpa
>>>>>>>>> device with an idential set of configs on the destination node,
>>>>>>>>> same way as how source node created the device in the first
>>>>>>>>> place. In order to save orchestration software from memorizing
>>>>>>>>> and keeping track of vdpa config, it will be helpful if the vdpa
>>>>>>>>> tool provides the aids for exporting the initial configs as-is,
>>>>>>>>> the way how vdpa device was created. The "vdpa dev show" command
>>>>>>>>> seems to be the right vehicle for that. It is unlike the "vdpa 
>>>>>>>>> dev
>>>>>>>>> config show" command output which usually goes with the live 
>>>>>>>>> value
>>>>>>>>> in the device config space, and is not quite reliable subject to
>>>>>>>>> the dynamics of feature negotiation or possible change by the
>>>>>>>>> driver to the config space.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Examples:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 1) Create vDPA by default without any config attribute
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> $ vdpa dev add mgmtdev pci/0000:41:04.2 name vdpa0
>>>>>>>>> $ vdpa dev show vdpa0
>>>>>>>>> vdpa0: type network mgmtdev pci/0000:41:04.2 vendor_id 5555
>>>>>>>>> max_vqs 9 max_vq_size 256
>>>>>>>>> $ vdpa dev -jp show vdpa0
>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>        "dev": {
>>>>>>>>>            "vdpa0": {
>>>>>>>>>                "type": "network",
>>>>>>>>>                "mgmtdev": "pci/0000:41:04.2",
>>>>>>>>>                "vendor_id": 5555,
>>>>>>>>>                "max_vqs": 9,
>>>>>>>>>                "max_vq_size": 256,
>>>>>>>>>            }
>>>>>>>>>        }
>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 2) Create vDPA with config attribute(s) specified
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> $ vdpa dev add mgmtdev pci/0000:41:04.2 name vdpa0 \
>>>>>>>>>        mac e4:11:c6:d3:45:f0 max_vq_pairs 4
>>>>>>>>> $ vdpa dev show
>>>>>>>>> vdpa0: type network mgmtdev pci/0000:41:04.2 vendor_id 5555
>>>>>>>>> max_vqs 9 max_vq_size 256
>>>>>>>>>      initial_config: mac e4:11:c6:d3:45:f0 max_vq_pairs 4
>>>>>>>>> $ vdpa dev -jp show
>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>        "dev": {
>>>>>>>>>            "vdpa0": {
>>>>>>>>>                "type": "network",
>>>>>>>>>                "mgmtdev": "pci/0000:41:04.2",
>>>>>>>>>                "vendor_id": 5555,
>>>>>>>>>                "max_vqs": 9,
>>>>>>>>>                "max_vq_size": 256,
>>>>>>>>>                "initial_config": {
>>>>>>>>>                    "mac": "e4:11:c6:d3:45:f0",
>>>>>>>>>                    "max_vq_pairs": 4
>>>>>>>>>                }
>>>>>>>>>            }
>>>>>>>>>        }
>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Si-Wei Liu<si-wei.liu@...cle.com>
>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>>     drivers/vdpa/vdpa.c | 39 
>>>>>>>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>>>>>     1 file changed, 39 insertions(+)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/vdpa/vdpa.c b/drivers/vdpa/vdpa.c
>>>>>>>>> index bebded6..bfb8f54 100644
>>>>>>>>> --- a/drivers/vdpa/vdpa.c
>>>>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/vdpa/vdpa.c
>>>>>>>>> @@ -677,6 +677,41 @@ static int
>>>>>>>>> vdpa_nl_cmd_dev_del_set_doit(struct sk_buff *skb, struct
>>>>>>>>> genl_info *i
>>>>>>>>>     }
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>     static int
>>>>>>>>> +vdpa_dev_initcfg_fill(struct vdpa_device *vdev, struct sk_buff
>>>>>>>>> *msg, u32 device_id)
>>>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>>>> +       struct vdpa_dev_set_config *cfg = &vdev->init_cfg;
>>>>>>>>> +       int err = -EMSGSIZE;
>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>> +       if (!cfg->mask)
>>>>>>>>> +               return 0;
>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>> +       switch (device_id) {
>>>>>>>>> +       case VIRTIO_ID_NET:
>>>>>>>>> +               if ((cfg->mask &
>>>>>>>>> BIT_ULL(VDPA_ATTR_DEV_NET_CFG_MACADDR)) != 0 &&
>>>>>>>>> +                   nla_put(msg, VDPA_ATTR_DEV_NET_CFG_MACADDR,
>>>>>>>>> + sizeof(cfg->net.mac), cfg->net.mac))
>>>>>>>>> +                       return err;
>>>>>>>>> +               if ((cfg->mask &
>>>>>>>>> BIT_ULL(VDPA_ATTR_DEV_NET_CFG_MTU)) != 0 &&
>>>>>>>>> +                   nla_put_u16(msg, VDPA_ATTR_DEV_NET_CFG_MTU,
>>>>>>>>> cfg->net.mtu))
>>>>>>>>> +                       return err;
>>>>>>>>> +               if ((cfg->mask &
>>>>>>>>> BIT_ULL(VDPA_ATTR_DEV_NET_CFG_MAX_VQP)) != 0 &&
>>>>>>>>> +                   nla_put_u16(msg, 
>>>>>>>>> VDPA_ATTR_DEV_NET_CFG_MAX_VQP,
>>>>>>>>> + cfg->net.max_vq_pairs))
>>>>>>>>> +                       return err;
>>>>>>>>> +               break;
>>>>>>>>> +       default:
>>>>>>>>> +               break;
>>>>>>>>> +       }
>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>> +       if ((cfg->mask & BIT_ULL(VDPA_ATTR_DEV_FEATURES)) != 0 &&
>>>>>>>>> +           nla_put_u64_64bit(msg, VDPA_ATTR_DEV_FEATURES,
>>>>>>>>> + cfg->device_features, VDPA_ATTR_PAD))
>>>>>>>>> +               return err;
>>>>>>>> A question: If any of those above attributes were not provisioned,
>>>>>>>> should we show the ones that are inherited from the parent?
>>>>>>> A simple answer would be yes, but the long answer is that I am not
>>>>>>> sure
>>>>>>> if there's any for the moment - there's no  default value for mtu,
>>>>>>> mac,
>>>>>>> and max_vqp that can be inherited from the parent (max_vqp by 
>>>>>>> default
>>>>>>> being 1 is spec defined, not something inherited from the parent).
>>>>>> Note that it is by default from driver level that if _F_MQ is not
>>>>>> negotiated. But I think we are talking about something different 
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> is out of the spec here, what if:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> vDPA inherit _F_MQ but mqx_vqp is not provisioned via netlink.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Or is it not allowed?
>>>>> My understanding is that this is not allowed any more since the
>>>>> introduction of max_vqp attribute. Noted, currently we don't have a
>>>>> way for vendor driver to report the default value for mqx_vqp,
>>>>
>>>> I think it can be reported in this patch?
>>> Yes, we can add, but I am not sure whether or not this will be
>>> practically useful, for e.g. the same command without max_vqp specified
>>> may render different number of queues across different devices, or
>>> different revisions of the same vendor's devices. Does it complicate 
>>> the
>>> mgmt software even more, I'm not sure....
>> It depends on the use case, e.g if we want to compare the migration
>> compatibility, having a single vdpa command query is much easier than
>> having two or more.
> Yep I agree. I was saying not very attribute would need to be 
> inherited from the parent device. Actually attributes like max_vqp 
> could take the default from some common place for e.g. some default 
> value can be applied by vdpa core. And we can document these 
> attributes ruled by vdpa core in vdpa-dev(8) man page. Reduce the 
> extra call of having mgmt software issue another query command which 
> actually doesn't need to.
>
>>
>>> Could we instead mandate
>>> max_vqp to be 1 from vdpa core level if user doesn't explicitly specify
>>> the value?
>> This seems to be not easy, at least not easy in the vDPA core.
> We can load these default values from vdpa_nl_cmd_dev_add_set_doit() 
> before ops->dev_add is called. I can post a v3 that shows the code, it 
> shouldn't be too hard.


Ok, and I wonder if it's time to move netlink specific code into a 
dedicated file.


>
>>   We can
>> probably document this somewhere but max_vqp is only one example, we
>> have other mq devices like block/SCSI/console.
> Actually max_vqp is a network device specific config to provision mq 
> devices. If the parent mgmtdev supports net vdpa device creation and 
> user requests to provision _F_MQ with no supplied max_vqp value, we 
> should load some global default value there.
>
>>
>>> That way it is more consistent in terms of the resulting
>>> number of queue pairs (=1) with the case where parent device does not
>>> offer the _F_MQ feature.
>> Right, but a corner case is to provision _F_MQ but without max_vqp.
> Yes, I will post the patch that supports this.
>>
>>>>
>>>>> if not otherwise specified in the CLI. Without getting the default
>>>>> value reported in 'vdpa mgmtdev show' level, it'd just confuse mgmt
>>>>> software even more.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, this is something that we need to fix. And what's more in order
>>>> to support dynamic provisioning, we need a way to report the number of
>>>> available instances that could be used for vDPA device provisioning.
>>> Wouldn't it be possible to achieve that by simply checking how many
>>> parent mgmtdev instances don't have vdpa device provisioned yet? e.g.
>>>
>>> inuse=$(vdpa dev show | grep mgmtdev | wc -l)
>>> total=$(vdpa mgmtdev show  | grep "supported_classes" | wc -l )
>>> echo $((total - inuse))
>> I meant how many available vDPA devices that are available for the
>> mgmt to create?
> Oh I see.
>
>>
>> E.g in the case of sub function or simulator a mgmtdev can create more
>> than 1 vdpa devices.
> Does the sub function today supports creation of multiple vDPA 
> instance per mgmtdev?


I think so, otherwise SF doesn't make too much sense.


> Something I wasn't aware of before. Is it with different device class?


It should be possible (no limitation in the vdpa core at least). Each 
device class should register its own mgmtdev.


>
>>
>>>>
>>>>>>     At least some time in the past, mlx5 were
>>>>>> enabled with MQ with 8 queue pairs by default.
>>>>> That was the situation when there's no max_vqp attribute support from
>>>>> vdpa netlink API level. I think now every driver honors the vdpa core
>>>>> disposition to get a single queue pair if max_vqp config is missing.
>>>> So we have:
>>>>
>>>> int vdpa_register_device(struct vdpa_device *vdev, int nvqs)
>>>>
>>>> This means technically, parent can allocate a multiqueue devices with
>>>> _F_MQ features if max_vqp and device_features is not provisioned. And
>>>> what's more, what happens if _F_MQ is provisioned by max_vqp is not
>>>> specified?
>>>>
>>>> The question is:
>>>>
>>>> When a attribute is not specificed/provisioned via net link, what's
>>>> the default value? The answer should be consistent: if device_features
>>>> is determined by the parent, we should do the same for mqx_vqp.
>>> OK I got your point.
>>>
>>>> And it looks to me all of those belongs to the initial config
>>>> (self-contained)
>>> Right. I wonder if we can have vdpa core define the default value (for
>>> e.g. max_vqp=1) for those unspecified attribute (esp. when the
>>> corresponding device feature is offered and provisioned) whenever
>>> possible. Which I think it'll be more consistent for the same 
>>> command to
>>> get to the same result between different vendor drivers. While we still
>>> keep the possibility for future extension to allow driver override the
>>> vdpa core disposition if the real use case emerges. What do you think?
>> That's possible but we may end up with device specific code in the
>> vDPA core which is not elegant, and the code will grow as the number
>> of supported types grows.
> I guess that's unavoidable as this is already the case today. See 
> various VIRTIO_ID_NET case switch in the vdpa.c code. I think type 
> specific code just limits itself to the netlink API interfacing layer 
> rather than down to the driver API, it might be just okay (as that's 
> already the case).
>
>>
>> Note that, max_vqp is not the only attribute that may suffer from
>> this, basically any config field that depends on a specific feature
>> bit may have the same issue.
>>
>>>>
>>>>> And the mlx5_vdpa driver with 8 queue pairs in the wild days is just
>>>>> irrelevant to be manageable by mgmt software, regardless of live
>>>>> migration.
>>>>>>> And
>>>>>>> the device_features if inherited is displayed at 'vdpa dev config
>>>>>>> show'
>>>>>>> output. Can you remind me of a good example for inherited value
>>>>>>> that we
>>>>>>> may want to show here?
>>>>>> Some other cases:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1) MTU: there should be something that the device needs to report if
>>>>>> _F_MTU is negotiated even if it is not provisioned from netlink.
>>>>> I am not sure I understand the ask here. Noted the QEMU argument has
>>>>> to offer host_mtu=X with the maximum MTU value for guest to use (and
>>>>> applied as the initial MTU config during virtio-net probing for Linux
>>>>> driver),
>>>>
>>>> Adding Cindy.
>>>>
>>>> I think it's a known issue that we need to do sanity check to make
>>>> sure cli parameters matches what is provisioned from netlink.
>>> Right. How's the plan for QEMU to get to the mtu provisioned by 
>>> netlink,
>>> via a new vhost-vdpa ioctl call?
>> I think netlink is not designed for qemu to use, the design is to
>> expose a vhost device to Qemu.
>>
>>> If so, will  QEMU be able to read it
>>> directly from kernel when it comes to the vhost-vdpa backend, without
>>> having user to specify host_mtu from CLI?
>> I'm not sure I get the question, but Qemu should get this via config
>> space (otherwise it should be a bug).
> It's hard for QEMU to work this way with the existing get_config() ops 
> I think, as it has assumption around endianness and feature 
> negotiation, until the latter is done you can't get any reliable value 
> for provisioned property. I think QEMU which need to validate the 
> provisioned value way earlier (when QEMU is launched), before 
> negotiation kicks in. It would be clearner to use another vhost and a 
> new vdpa driver ops to retrieve the provisioned feature config values 
> from vendor drivers.
>
>>   And Qemu need to verify the mtu
>> got from cli vs the mtu got from vhost and fail the device
>> initialization if they don't match.
> I mean today there's a problem for double provisioning: for e.g. mtu 
> has to be first provided in the 'vdpa dev add' command when to 
> provision _F_MTU, in QEMU CLI the same value has to be supplied to 
> host_mtu. The same applies to mac address. It would be the best we can 
> allow QEMU load the provisioned value from vdpa device directly, 
> without having to provide extra duplicated configs in QEMU CLI level.


That's the plan, I want to say is that Qemu should do santiy test to 
make sure what provided from CLI matches what is provisioned from the 
device.


>
>>
>>>>
>>>>> and the way to get the parent device MTU and whether that's relevant
>>>>> to vdpa device's MTU is very vendor specific.
>>>>
>>>> So I think the max MTU of parent should be equal to the max MTU of the
>>>> vDPA.
>>> Noted here the parent might not be necessarily the mgmtdev where vdpa
>>> gets created over. It may well end up with the MTU on the PF (uplink
>>> port) which the mgmt software has to concern with. My point is the
>>> utility and tool chain able to derive the maximal MTU effectively
>>> allowed for vDPA device may live out of vDPA's realm. It's a rare or
>>> even invalid configuration to have vDPA configured with a bigger value
>>> than the MTU on the uplink port or parent device. It's more common when
>>> MTU config is involved, it has to be consistently configured across all
>>> the network links along, from parent device (uplink port) down to the
>>> switchdev representor port, vdpa device, and QEMU virtio-net object.
>> Ok, right.
>>
>>>>
>>>>> I think we would need new attribute(s) in the mgmtdev level to
>>>>> support what you want here?
>>>>
>>>> Not sure, but what I want to ask is consider we provision MTU feature
>>>> but without max MTU value, do we need to report the initial max MTU 
>>>> here?
>>> Yep, maybe. I'm not very sure if this will be very useful to be honest,
>>> consider it's kinda a rare case to me were to provision MTU feature
>>> without a specific MTU value. If one cares about MTU, mgmt software
>>> should configure some mtu through "vdpa dev add ... mtu ...", no?
>> Yes, but this only works if all config fields could be provisioned,
>> which seems not the case now, vdpa_dev_set_config is currently a
>> subset of virtio_net_config. So this goes back to the question I
>> raised earlier. Is the time to switch to use virtio_net_config and
>> allow all fields to be provisioned?
> Don't quite get how it will be useful if switching to 
> virtio_net_config. I thought we can add the missing fields to 
> vdpa_dev_set_config even now to make it match virtio_net_config. 
> Though the reality is there's few vdpa device that supports those 
> features now. If any real device supports feature field in 
> virtio_net_config but not in vdpa_dev_set_config, it can be gradually 
> added so long as needed.
>
>>
>> And even for mtu we're lacking a way to report the maximum MTU allowed
>> by mgmt dev (e.g the uplink MTU via netlink):
> Since MTU is only implemented in mlx5_vdpa by now except for 
> simulators, copy Eli to see if this is feasible to implement in real 
> device. I think we also need to validate that the mtu configured on 
> vDPA device instance shouldn't exceed the uplink MTU (maximum MTU 
> allowed).
>
>> 1) report the maximum host mtu supported by the mgmtdev via netlink
>> (not done, so management needs to guess the maximum value now)
>> 2) allow mtu to be provisioned (done)
>> 3) show initial mtu (done by this patch)
> So I wonder is it fine for vdpa core to come up with a default value 
> for MTU when _F_MTU feature is to be provisioned or inherited?


It should be not easy since it depends on the parent.


> If we mandate each vDPA vendor to support at least the standard 1500 
> MTU for _F_MTU feature, we can make it default to 1500.
>
> Otherwise the vDPA has to be taken (inherited) from the parent device. 
> Unfortunately, right now for mlx5_vdpa, the parent mgmtdev device has 
> 1500 MTU by default regardless of the MTU on the uplink port, and I'm 
> not sure if it's a right model to enforce mgmtdev go with uplink 
> port's MTU. I would need to hear what vendors say about this requirement.
>
>>
>> We probably need to do the above for all fields to be self-contained.
> Agreed on the part of being self-contained.
>
>>
>>> On the other hand, no mtu value specified may mean "go with what the
>>> uplink port or parent device has". I think this is a pretty useful case
>>> if the vendor's NIC supports updating MTU on the fly without having to
>>> tear down QEMU and reconfigure vdpa. I'm not sure if we end up with
>>> killing this use case by limiting initial max MTU to a fixed value.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> 2) device_features: if device_features is not provisioned, we should
>>>>>> still report it via netlink here
>>>>> Not the way I expected it, but with Lingshan's series to expose
>>>>> fields out of FEATURES_OK, the device_features is now reported
>>>>> through 'vdpa dev config show' regardless being specified or not, if
>>>>> I am not mistaken?
>>>>
>>>> Yes.
>>> Do you want me to relocate to 'vdpa dev show', or it's okay to leave it
>>> behind there?
>> It's probably too late for the relocation but I feel it's better to
>> place all the initial/inherited attributes into a single command even
>> if some of them are already somewhere in another command, but we can
>> hear from others.
> Ok, that'll be fine. I supposed mgmt software should only query 
> through "mgmtdev show" or "dev show", avoiding any query via"dev 
> config show". It'd be the best to get all of the compatibility related 
> info consolidated in one single place. Let me try to include it in 
> "dev show".
>
>>
>>>>
>>>>> Currently we export the config attributes upon vdpa creation under
>>>>> the "initial_config" key. If we want to expose more default values
>>>>> inherited from mgmtdev, I think we can wrap up these default values
>>>>> under another key "inherited_config" to display in 'vdpa dev show'
>>>>> output. Does it fit what you have in mind?
>>>>
>>>> I wonder if it's better to merge those two, or is there any advantages
>>>> of splitting them?
>>> I think for the most part "initial_config" will be sufficient for those
>>> config attributes with "vdpa dev add" equivalents, be it user 
>>> specified,
>>> vdpa enforced default if missing user input, or default overridden by
>>> the parent device. "inherited_config" will be useful for the configs
>>> with no "vdpa dev add" equivalent or live out side of vdpa tool, but
>>> still important for mgmt software to replicate identical vdpa setup.
>>> Like max-supported-mtu (for the uplink port or parent device),
>>> effective-link-speed, effective-link-status et al. Let's see if there's
>>> more when we get there.
>> So one point I can see is that, if there's no difference from the
>> userpsace perspective, we'd better merge them. And I don't see any
>> difference between the initial versus inherited from the view of user
>> space. Do you?
> So the major difference is "initial_config" is settable and equivalent 
> to the config attribute in "vdpa dev add" command, while 
> "inherited_config" is the read-only fields from "mgmtdev show" that 
> does not correspond to any "vdpa dev add" vdpa attribute. That way the 
> mgmt software can use the "initial_config" directly to recreate vdpa 
> with identical device config, while using the "inherited_config" to 
> replicate the other configs out of vdpa, for e.g. set uplink port's 
> MTU to 9000. Maybe there's no need to fold such info into an 
> "inherited_config" key? though I just want to make it relevant to 
> migration compatibility. Any suggestion for the name or layout?


As stated above I think a single key would be better since I don't see a 
reason user need to differ them.

Thanks


>
>
> Thanks,
> -Siwei
>
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> -Siwei
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> or do you mean the mgmt can assume it
>>>>>> should be the same as mgmtdev. Anyhow if we don't show 
>>>>>> device_features
>>>>>> if it is not provisioned, it will complicate the mgmt software.
>>>>> Yes, as I said earlier, since the device_features attr getting added
>>>>> to the 'vdpa dev config show' command, this divergence started to
>>>>> complicate mgmt software already.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> -Siwei
>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> -Siwei
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>> +       return 0;
>>>>>>>>> +}
>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>> +static int
>>>>>>>>>     vdpa_dev_fill(struct vdpa_device *vdev, struct sk_buff *msg,
>>>>>>>>> u32 portid, u32 seq,
>>>>>>>>>                  int flags, struct netlink_ext_ack *extack)
>>>>>>>>>     {
>>>>>>>>> @@ -715,6 +750,10 @@ static int
>>>>>>>>> vdpa_nl_cmd_dev_del_set_doit(struct sk_buff *skb, struct
>>>>>>>>> genl_info *i
>>>>>>>>>            if (nla_put_u16(msg, VDPA_ATTR_DEV_MIN_VQ_SIZE,
>>>>>>>>> min_vq_size))
>>>>>>>>>                    goto msg_err;
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> +       err = vdpa_dev_initcfg_fill(vdev, msg, device_id);
>>>>>>>>> +       if (err)
>>>>>>>>> +               goto msg_err;
>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>            genlmsg_end(msg, hdr);
>>>>>>>>>            return 0;
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>>> 1.8.3.1
>>>>>>>>>
>

Powered by blists - more mailing lists