netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 1/2] net: hns3: PF add support for pushing link status to VFs

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 15 Apr 2021 09:11:03 +0800
From:   Huazhong Tan <tanhuazhong@...wei.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
CC:     <davem@...emloft.net>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        <salil.mehta@...wei.com>, <yisen.zhuang@...wei.com>,
        <huangdaode@...wei.com>, <linuxarm@...neuler.org>,
        <linuxarm@...wei.com>, Guangbin Huang <huangguangbin2@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/2] net: hns3: PF add support for pushing link
 status to VFs


On 2021/4/15 0:42, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Apr 2021 09:51:38 +0800 Huazhong Tan wrote:
>> On 2021/4/14 1:18, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>>> On Tue, 13 Apr 2021 14:17:00 +0800 Huazhong Tan wrote:
>>>> +static void hclge_push_link_status(struct hclge_dev *hdev)
>>>> +{
>>>> +	struct hclge_vport *vport;
>>>> +	int ret;
>>>> +	u16 i;
>>>> +
>>>> +	for (i = 0; i < pci_num_vf(hdev->pdev); i++) {
>>>> +		vport = &hdev->vport[i + HCLGE_VF_VPORT_START_NUM];
>>>> +
>>>> +		if (!test_bit(HCLGE_VPORT_STATE_ALIVE, &vport->state) ||
>>>> +		    vport->vf_info.link_state != IFLA_VF_LINK_STATE_AUTO)
>>>> +			continue;
>>>> +
>>>> +		ret = hclge_push_vf_link_status(vport);
>>>> +		if (ret) {
>>>> +			dev_err(&hdev->pdev->dev,
>>>> +				"failed to push link status to vf%u, ret = %d\n",
>>>> +				i, ret);
>>> Isn't this error printed twice? Here and...
>> They are in different contexts. here will be called to
>> update the link status of all VFs when the underlying
>> link status is changed, while the below one is called
>> when the admin set up the specific VF link status.
> I see.


So this error will be printed twice only if these two cases
happen at the same, do you mean to add some keyword to
distinguish them?


> .