[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <AAEA33E297BCAC4B9BB20A7C2DF0AB8D654EA3EF@FMSMSX113.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2014 18:10:48 +0000
From: "Williams, Mitch A" <mitch.a.williams@...el.com>
To: Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com>,
"Kirsher, Jeffrey T" <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>,
"Rose, Gregory V" <gregory.v.rose@...el.com>
CC: "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"gospo@...hat.com" <gospo@...hat.com>,
"sassmann@...hat.com" <sassmann@...hat.com>,
"Brandeburg, Jesse" <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>
Subject: RE: [net-next 08/15] i40e: acknowledge VFLR when disabling SR-IOV
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sergei Shtylyov [mailto:sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com]
> Sent: Monday, January 06, 2014 8:43 AM
> To: Kirsher, Jeffrey T; Williams, Mitch A
> Cc: davem@...emloft.net; netdev@...r.kernel.org; gospo@...hat.com;
> sassmann@...hat.com; Brandeburg, Jesse
> Subject: Re: [net-next 08/15] i40e: acknowledge VFLR when disabling SR-IOV
>
> On 06.01.2014 16:30, Jeff Kirsher wrote:
>
> > From: Mitch Williams <mitch.a.williams@...el.com>
>
> > When SR-IOV is disabled, the (now nonexistent) virtual function
> > devices undergo a VFLR event. We don't need to handle this event
> > because the VFs are gone, but we do need to tell the HW that they are
> > complete. This fixes an issue with a phantom VFLR and broken VFs when
> > SR-IOV is re-enabled.
>
> > Change-Id: I7580b49ded0158172a85b14661ec212af77000c8
> > Signed-off-by: Mitch Williams <mitch.a.williams@...el.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>
> > Tested-by: Sibai Li <sibai.li@...el.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/net/ethernet/intel/i40e/i40e_virtchnl_pf.c | 15 +++++++++++++--
> > 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/i40e/i40e_virtchnl_pf.c
> b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/i40e/i40e_virtchnl_pf.c
> > index f92404c..e91f9d7 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/i40e/i40e_virtchnl_pf.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/i40e/i40e_virtchnl_pf.c
> [...]
> > @@ -748,8 +750,17 @@ void i40e_free_vfs(struct i40e_pf *pf)
> > kfree(pf->vf);
> > pf->vf = NULL;
> >
> > - if (!i40e_vfs_are_assigned(pf))
> > + if (!i40e_vfs_are_assigned(pf)) {
> > pci_disable_sriov(pf->pdev);
> > + /* Acknowledge VFLR for all VFS. Without this, VFs will fail to
> > + * work correctly when SR-IOV gets re-enabled.
> > + */
> > + for (vf_id = 0; vf_id < tmp; vf_id++) {
> > + reg_idx = (hw->func_caps.vf_base_id + vf_id) / 32;
> > + bit_idx = (hw->func_caps.vf_base_id + vf_id) % 32;
> > + wr32(hw, I40E_GLGEN_VFLRSTAT(reg_idx), (1 << bit_idx));
> > + }
> > + }
> > else
>
> } and *else* should be on the same line. And the *else* arm should also
> have {} now.
>
> > dev_warn(&pf->pdev->dev,
> > "unable to disable SR-IOV because VFs are assigned.\n");
>
> WBR, Sergei
You are absolutely correct, Sergei, and I apologize for not seeing this before I submitted the patch.
There will be a patch coming from Greg Rose in the next few weeks that will fix this problem in the process of adding a bug fix. Since this is just cosmetic, would it be all right with you if we just wait for Greg's patch to come through?
-Mitch
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists