[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <fa1c5922-ddbc-4765-a209-9c9477868635@ancud.ru>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2024 21:15:01 +0300
From: Nikita Kiryushin <kiryushin@...ud.ru>
To: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc: Sudarsana Kalluru <skalluru@...vell.com>,
Manish Chopra <manishc@...vell.com>, "David S. Miller"
<davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
lvc-project@...uxtesting.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] bnx2x: turn off FCoE if storage MAC-address
setup failed
On 7/15/24 17:10, Nikita Kiryushin wrote:
>> How broken is it when this happens?
> I can not say what would happen exactly, if the address is not assigned
> the way it should. But there would be at least an attempt to free unallocated
> address (in __bnx2x_remove).
>
>> This is called from .probe. So
>> returning the error code will fail the probe and the device will not
>> be created. Is that a better solution?
> To me, it does not seem fatal, that is why I am not returning error,
> just print it and disable FCoE. The "rc" set will not be returned (unless
> jumped to error handlers, which we are not doing). Would it be better, if
> I used some other result variable other than "rc"? The check could be the call,
> but than handling would be inside a lock, which I think is a bad idea.
The patch is marked as "Changes Requested" at the Patchwork,
but I am not sure, what has to be done with it.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists