netdev - Re: [patch net-next 08/15] sfc: register devlink port with ops

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, 25 May 2023 16:13:57 +0100
From: Alejandro Lucero Palau <alucerop@....com>
To: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc: kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com, davem@...emloft.net,
 edumazet@...gle.com, leon@...nel.org, saeedm@...dia.com, moshe@...dia.com,
 jesse.brandeburg@...el.com, anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com, tariqt@...dia.com,
 idosch@...dia.com, petrm@...dia.com, simon.horman@...igine.com,
 ecree.xilinx@...il.com, habetsm.xilinx@...il.com,
 michal.wilczynski@...el.com, jacob.e.keller@...el.com
Subject: Re: [patch net-next 08/15] sfc: register devlink port with ops


On 5/24/23 18:57, Alejandro Lucero Palau wrote:
> Hi Jiri,
>
> On 5/24/23 13:18, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>>
>> From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...dia.com>
>>
>> Use newly introduce devlink port registration function variant and
>> register devlink port passing ops.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...dia.com>
>> ---
>>   drivers/net/ethernet/sfc/efx_devlink.c | 8 +++++++-
>>   1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/sfc/efx_devlink.c 
>> b/drivers/net/ethernet/sfc/efx_devlink.c
>> index 381b805659d3..f93437757ba3 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/sfc/efx_devlink.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/sfc/efx_devlink.c
>> @@ -25,6 +25,10 @@ struct efx_devlink {
>>   };
>>
>>   #ifdef CONFIG_SFC_SRIOV
>> +
>> +static const struct devlink_port_ops sfc_devlink_port_ops = {
>> +};
>> +
>
> We can have devlink port without SRIOV, so we need this outside the 
> previous ifdef.
>
> Apart from that, it looks OK. I'll test it and report back.
>
Apart from the change requested:

Reviewed-by: Alejandro Lucero<alucerop@....com>
Tested-by: Alejandro Lucero<alucerop@....com>

>>   static void efx_devlink_del_port(struct devlink_port *dl_port)
>>   {
>>          if (!dl_port)
>> @@ -57,7 +61,9 @@ static int efx_devlink_add_port(struct efx_nic *efx,
>>
>>          mport->dl_port.index = mport->mport_id;
>>
>> -       return devl_port_register(efx->devlink, &mport->dl_port, 
>> mport->mport_id);
>> +       return devl_port_register_with_ops(efx->devlink, 
>> &mport->dl_port,
>> +                                          mport->mport_id,
>> + &sfc_devlink_port_ops);
>>   }
>>
>>   static int efx_devlink_port_addr_get(struct devlink_port *port, u8 
>> *hw_addr,
>> -- 
>> 2.39.2
>>
>>
>