netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 1/7] sfc: add devlink support for ef100

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:   Tue, 24 Jan 2023 07:31:16 +0000
From:   "Lucero Palau, Alejandro" <alejandro.lucero-palau@....com>
To:     Edward Cree <ecree.xilinx@...il.com>,
        "Lucero Palau, Alejandro" <alejandro.lucero-palau@....com>,
        Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-net-drivers (AMD-Xilinx)" <linux-net-drivers@....com>
CC:     "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "kuba@...nel.org" <kuba@...nel.org>,
        "pabeni@...hat.com" <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        "edumazet@...gle.com" <edumazet@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/7] sfc: add devlink support for ef100


On 1/24/23 06:13, Edward Cree wrote:
> On 20/01/2023 14:11, Lucero Palau, Alejandro wrote:
>> On 1/19/23 23:40, Jacob Keller wrote:
>>> On 1/19/2023 3:31 AM, alejandro.lucero-palau@....com wrote:
>>>> @@ -1124,6 +1125,10 @@ int ef100_probe_netdev_pf(struct efx_nic *efx)
>>>>    		netif_warn(efx, probe, net_dev,
>>>>    			   "Failed to probe base mport rc %d; representors will not function\n",
>>>>    			   rc);
>>>> +	} else {
>>>> +		if (efx_probe_devlink(efx))
>>>> +			netif_warn(efx, probe, net_dev,
>>>> +				   "Failed to register devlink\n");
>>>>    	}
>>>>    
>>> A bit of a weird construction here with the next step in an else block?
>>> I guess this is being treated as an optional feature, and depends on
>>> efx_ef100_get_base_mport succeeding?
>> Right. The mae ports initialization can fail but the driver can still
>> initialize the device with limited functionality.
> But in that case, we probably should support e.g. devlink info, even
>   though without the MAE ports we can't support devlink port.


Good point.

I've already modified the code for avoiding the weirdness and this 
should not be hard to do.

Thanks