netdev - Re: [PATCH v5 net-next 5/8] sfc: add devlink port 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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <a2be6feb-609a-5af4-123a-750a24104e47@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 6 Feb 2023 14:02:45 +0000
From:   Edward Cree <ecree.xilinx@...il.com>
To:     alejandro.lucero-palau@....com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-net-drivers@....com
Cc:     davem@...emloft.net, kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com,
        edumazet@...gle.com, habetsm.xilinx@...il.com,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, corbet@....net, jiri@...dia.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 net-next 5/8] sfc: add devlink port support for ef100

On 02/02/2023 11:14, alejandro.lucero-palau@....com wrote:
> From: Alejandro Lucero <alejandro.lucero-palau@....com>
> 
> Using the data when enumerating mports, create devlink ports just before
> netdevs are registered and remove those devlink ports after netdev has
> been unregistered.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Alejandro Lucero <alejandro.lucero-palau@....com>
...
> @@ -297,6 +298,7 @@ int efx_ef100_vfrep_create(struct efx_nic *efx, unsigned int i)
>  			i, rc);
>  		goto fail1;
>  	}
> +	ef100_rep_set_devlink_port(efv);
>  	rc = register_netdev(efv->net_dev);
>  	if (rc) {
>  		pci_err(efx->pci_dev,
> @@ -308,6 +310,7 @@ int efx_ef100_vfrep_create(struct efx_nic *efx, unsigned int i)
>  		efv->net_dev->name);
>  	return 0;
>  fail2:
> +	ef100_rep_unset_devlink_port(efv);
>  	efx_ef100_deconfigure_rep(efv);
>  fail1:
>  	efx_ef100_rep_destroy_netdev(efv);
> @@ -323,6 +326,7 @@ void efx_ef100_vfrep_destroy(struct efx_nic *efx, struct efx_rep *efv)
>  		return;
>  	netif_dbg(efx, drv, rep_dev, "Removing VF representor\n");
>  	unregister_netdev(rep_dev);
> +	ef100_rep_unset_devlink_port(efv);
>  	efx_ef100_deconfigure_rep(efv);
>  	efx_ef100_rep_destroy_netdev(efv);
>  }

Would it make sense to move these calls into
 efx_ef100_[de]configure_rep()?  It's responsible for other
 MAE/m-port related stuff (and is also common with remote reps
 when they arrive).