| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <577219CD.2000604@huawei.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2016 14:31:41 +0800
From: "Wei Hu (Xavier)" <xavier.huwei@...wei.com>
To: oulijun <oulijun@...wei.com>, Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>,
<dledford@...hat.com>
CC: <sean.hefty@...el.com>, <hal.rosenstock@...il.com>,
<davem@...emloft.net>, <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>,
<jiri@...lanox.com>, <ogerlitz@...lanox.com>,
<linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <gongyangming@...wei.com>,
<xiaokun@...wei.com>, <tangchaofei@...wei.com>,
<haifeng.wei@...wei.com>, <yisen.zhuang@...wei.com>,
<yankejian@...wei.com>, <charles.chenxin@...wei.com>,
<linuxarm@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 04/22] IB/hns: Add RoCE engine reset function
On 2016/6/27 16:31, oulijun wrote:
> Hi, Leon
> 在 2016/6/27 16:01, Leon Romanovsky 写道:
>> On Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 06:25:37PM +0800, Wei Hu (Xavier) wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2016/6/24 22:59, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 10:35:12PM +0800, Lijun Ou wrote:
>>>>> This patch mainly added reset flow of RoCE engine in RoCE
>>>>> driver. It is necessary when RoCE is loaded and removed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Wei Hu <xavier.huwei@...wei.com>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Nenglong Zhao <zhaonenglong@...ilicon.com>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Lijun Ou <oulijun@...wei.com>
>>>>> ---
>> ...
>>
>>>>> +
>>>>> +#define SLEEP_TIME_INTERVAL 20
>>>>> +
>>>>> +extern int hns_dsaf_roce_reset(struct fwnode_handle *dsaf_fwnode, bool enable);
>>>> Why did you add this extern?
>>>> You already exported this function.
>>>> drivers/net/ethernet/hisilicon/hns/hns_dsaf_main.c:EXPORT_SYMBOL(hns_dsaf_roce_reset);
>>> Hi, Leon
>>>
>>> The function named hns_dsaf_roce_reset is defined in hns_dsaf_main.c
>>> It exists in hns_dsaf.ko(ethernet driver)
>>>
>>> RoCE driver will call this function.
>>>
>>> Your suggestion is that delete "extern" as below:
>>> In /drivers/infiniband/hw/hns/hns_roce_hw_v1.h:
>>>
>>> int hns_dsaf_roce_reset(struct fwnode_handle *dsaf_fwnode, bool
>>> enable);
>>>
>>> Right? or other soultion?
>> You placed it in header file.
>> Please move it to your hns_roce_hw_v1.c file.
>>
> You suggest to do as follows, right?
> in hns_roce_hw_v1.c
> int hns_dsaf_roce_reset(struct fwnode_handle *dsaf_fwnode, bool enable);
>
> and delete the keyword extern
>
> Bcause reserve the extern in hns_roce_hw_v1.c, the checkpatch is not pass.
Hi, Leon & Doug Ledford
If we move it to hns_roce_hw_v1.c file as below:
int hns_dsaf_roce_reset(struct fwnode_handle *dsaf_fwnode, bool
enable);
The result of checkpatch is warning.
We prepare to add a head file for this function as below:
In the directory of include\linux, mkdir hns.
add hns_driver.h in include\linux\hns.
In the file of hns_driver.h, the declaration:
int hns_dsaf_roce_reset(struct fwnode_handle
*dsaf_fwnode, bool enable);
What do you think about?
Regards
Wei Hu
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Wei Hu
>>>>> +
>>>>> +#endif
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/hw/hns/hns_roce_main.c b/drivers/infiniband/hw/hns/hns_roce_main.c
>>>>> index 8924ce3..d5ccce2 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/infiniband/hw/hns/hns_roce_main.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/infiniband/hw/hns/hns_roce_main.c
>>>>> @@ -71,7 +71,9 @@ static int hns_roce_get_cfg(struct hns_roce_dev *hr_dev)
>>>>> struct platform_device *pdev = NULL;
>>>>> struct resource *res;
>>>>> - if (!of_device_is_compatible(np, "hisilicon,hns-roce-v1")) {
>>>>> + if (of_device_is_compatible(np, "hisilicon,hns-roce-v1")) {
>>>>> + hr_dev->hw = &hns_roce_hw_v1;
>>>>> + } else {
>>>>> dev_err(dev, "device no compatible!\n");
>>>>> return -EINVAL;
>>>>> }
>>>>> @@ -118,6 +120,11 @@ static int hns_roce_get_cfg(struct hns_roce_dev *hr_dev)
>>>>> return 0;
>>>>> }
>>>>> +static int hns_roce_engine_reset(struct hns_roce_dev *hr_dev, bool enable)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + return hr_dev->hw->reset(hr_dev, enable);
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +
>>>>> /**
>>>>> * hns_roce_probe - RoCE driver entrance
>>>>> * @pdev: pointer to platform device
>>>>> @@ -156,6 +163,12 @@ static int hns_roce_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>>> goto error_failed_get_cfg;
>>>>> }
>>>>> + ret = hns_roce_engine_reset(hr_dev, true);
>>>> Do you have better solution to sense device without doing full reset of
>>>> your hardware?
>>> Hi, Leon
>>>
>>> In this place, we need reset RoCEE engine to ensure that RoCE engine can
>>> work correctly.
>>> Hip06 Soc only support full reset RoCEE engine.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Wei Hu
>>>
>>>>> + if (ret) {
>>>>> + dev_err(dev, "Reset roce engine failed!\n");
>>>>> + goto error_failed_get_cfg;
>>>>> + }
>>>>> +
>>>>> error_failed_get_cfg:
>>>>> ib_dealloc_device(&hr_dev->ib_dev);
>>>>> @@ -170,6 +183,8 @@ static int hns_roce_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>>> {
>>>>> struct hns_roce_dev *hr_dev = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
>>>>> + (void)hns_roce_engine_reset(hr_dev, false);
>>>> Any reason to do explicit casting?
>>> Hi, Leon
>>>
>>> /**
>>> * hns_roce_engine_reset - reset roce
>>> * @hr_dev: roce device struct pointer
>>> * @enable: true -- drop reset, false -- reset
>>> * return 0 - success , negative --fail
>>> */
>>> static int hns_roce_engine_reset(struct hns_roce_dev *hr_dev, bool enable);
>>>
>>> hns_roce_engine_reset->hns_roce_v1_reset->hns_dsaf_roce_reset
>>>
>>> The err branch of hns_roce_engine_reset as below：
>>> int hns_dsaf_roce_reset(struct fwnode_handle *dsaf_fwnode, bool enable)
>>> {
>>> <...>
>>> if (!is_of_node(dsaf_fwnode)) {
>>> pr_err("hisi_dsaf: Only support DT node!\n");
>>> return -EINVAL;
>>> }
>>>
>>> pdev = of_find_device_by_node(to_of_node(dsaf_fwnode));
>>> dsaf_dev = dev_get_drvdata(&pdev->dev);
>>> if (AE_IS_VER1(dsaf_dev->dsaf_ver)) {
>>> dev_err(dsaf_dev->dev, "%s v1 chip do not support roce!\n",
>>> dsaf_dev->ae_dev.name);
>>> return -ENODEV;
>>> }
>>> <...>
>>> }
>>>
>>> When the cpu is processing hns_roce_engine_reset(hr_dev, false),
>>> hns_roce_engine_reset(hr_dev, true) have been alomost processed
>>> sucessfully.
>>> From the err branch of hns_roce_engine_reset, we found at this time
>>> hns_roce_engine_reset(hr_dev, true) could not return err.
>>>
>>> In hns_roce_remove function, we call hns_roce_engine_reset(hr_dev, false),
>>> and doesn't need to judge the return value.
>> Do you see any compilation warning for this part of code?
>>
>> struct hns_roce_dev *hr_dev = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
>> + hns_roce_engine_reset(hr_dev, false);
>>
>> instead of
>>
>> struct hns_roce_dev *hr_dev = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
>> + (void)hns_roce_engine_reset(hr_dev, false);
>>
> No warning.
> However, the result of PClint checking is error, because the hns_roce_engine_reset have return value.
>
> thanks
> Lijun Ou
>
>
>
> .
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists