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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2020 08:08:54 +0200 From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us> To: Moshe Shemesh <moshe@...dia.com> 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 Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 10:28:44PM CEST, moshe@...dia.com wrote: > >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 ? It would make sense to show just remote stats. > >How such remote counter should look like ? something like remote_fw_activate >while the local is just fw_activate ? Sounds good. > >> > >> > > [..]
Powered by blists - more mailing lists