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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Tue, 15 Sep 2020 23:28:44 +0300
From:   Moshe Shemesh <moshe@...dia.com>
To:     Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
CC:     Moshe Shemesh <moshe@...lanox.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next RFC v4 10/15] net/mlx5: Add support for devlink
 reload action fw activate


On 9/15/2020 4:37 PM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 02:44:02PM CEST, moshe@...dia.com wrote:
>> On 9/14/2020 4:54 PM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>>> Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 08:07:57AM CEST, moshe@...lanox.com wrote:
>>>
>>> [..]
>>>
>>>> +static void mlx5_fw_reset_complete_reload(struct mlx5_core_dev *dev)
>>>> +{
>>>> +	struct mlx5_fw_reset *fw_reset = dev->priv.fw_reset;
>>>> +
>>>> +	/* if this is the driver that initiated the fw reset, devlink completed the reload */
>>>> +	if (test_bit(MLX5_FW_RESET_FLAGS_PENDING_COMP, &fw_reset->reset_flags)) {
>>>> +		complete(&fw_reset->done);
>>>> +	} else {
>>>> +		mlx5_load_one(dev, false);
>>>> +		devlink_reload_implicit_actions_performed(priv_to_devlink(dev),
>>>> +							  DEVLINK_RELOAD_ACTION_LIMIT_LEVEL_NONE,
>>>> +							  BIT(DEVLINK_RELOAD_ACTION_DRIVER_REINIT) |
>>>> +							  BIT(DEVLINK_RELOAD_ACTION_FW_ACTIVATE));
>>> Hmm, who originated the reset? Devlink_reload of the same devlink
>>> instance?
>>
>> Not the same devlink instance for sure. I defer it by the flag above
>> MLX5_FW_RESET_FLAG_PENDING_COMP. If the flag set, I set complete to the
>> reload_down() waiting for it.
> Hmm, thinking about the stats, as
> devlink_reload_implicit_actions_performed() is called only in case
> another instance does the reload, shouldn't it be a separate set of
> stats? I think that the user would like to distinguish local and remote
> reload, don't you think?
>

Possible, it will double the counters, but it will give more info.

So actually, if devlink_reload is not supported by driver, I should hold 
and show only the remote stats or all stats always ?

How such remote counter should look like ? something like 
remote_fw_activate  while the local is just fw_activate ?

>>
>>> [..]

Powered by blists - more mailing lists