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]

Message-ID: <ZG+SY1rfCaBsbp6K@nanopsycho>
Date: Thu, 25 May 2023 18:52:51 +0200
From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To: Alejandro Lucero Palau <alucerop@....com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, 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

Thu, May 25, 2023 at 05:13:57PM CEST, alucerop@....com wrote:
>
>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:

Did you see the reply to your email?

>
>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
>> > 
>> > 
>>