[dpdk-dev,v2] net/mlx5: fix link status query

Message ID 1485863129-6326-1-git-send-email-shahafs@mellanox.com
State Changes Requested, archived
Delegated to: Ferruh Yigit
Headers show

Checks

Context Check Description
ci/Intel compilation success Compilation OK
ci/checkpatch success coding style OK

Commit Message

Shahaf Shuler Jan. 31, 2017, 11:45 a.m.
Trying to query the link status through new kernel ioctl API
ETHTOOL_GLINKSETTINGS was always failing due to kernel bug.
The bug was fixed on version 4.9
this patch uses the legacy ioctl API for lower kernels.

Fixes: 188408719888 ("net/mlx5: fix support for newer link speeds")
CC: stable@dpdk.org

Signed-off-by: Shahaf Shuler <shahafs@mellanox.com>
---
on v2:
* remove HAVE_ETHTOOL_LINK_MODE_*

---
 drivers/net/mlx5/Makefile      | 15 ---------------
 drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_ethdev.c | 12 +++---------
 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)

Comments

Nélio Laranjeiro Jan. 31, 2017, 3:42 p.m. | #1
On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 01:45:29PM +0200, Shahaf Shuler wrote:
> Trying to query the link status through new kernel ioctl API
> ETHTOOL_GLINKSETTINGS was always failing due to kernel bug.
> The bug was fixed on version 4.9
> this patch uses the legacy ioctl API for lower kernels.
> 
> Fixes: 188408719888 ("net/mlx5: fix support for newer link speeds")
> CC: stable@dpdk.org
> 
> Signed-off-by: Shahaf Shuler <shahafs@mellanox.com>
> ---
> on v2:
> * remove HAVE_ETHTOOL_LINK_MODE_*
> 
> ---
>  drivers/net/mlx5/Makefile      | 15 ---------------
>  drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_ethdev.c | 12 +++---------
>  2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/net/mlx5/Makefile b/drivers/net/mlx5/Makefile
> index 671089c..0b8f7ba 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/mlx5/Makefile
> +++ b/drivers/net/mlx5/Makefile
> @@ -122,21 +122,6 @@ mlx5_autoconf.h.new: $(RTE_SDK)/buildtools/auto-config-h.sh
>  		infiniband/mlx5_hw.h \
>  		enum MLX5_OPCODE_TSO \
>  		$(AUTOCONF_OUTPUT)
> -	$Q sh -- '$<' '$@' \
> -		HAVE_ETHTOOL_LINK_MODE_25G \
> -		/usr/include/linux/ethtool.h \
> -		enum ETHTOOL_LINK_MODE_25000baseCR_Full_BIT \
> -		$(AUTOCONF_OUTPUT)
> -	$Q sh -- '$<' '$@' \
> -		HAVE_ETHTOOL_LINK_MODE_50G \
> -		/usr/include/linux/ethtool.h \
> -		enum ETHTOOL_LINK_MODE_50000baseCR2_Full_BIT \
> -		$(AUTOCONF_OUTPUT)
> -	$Q sh -- '$<' '$@' \
> -		HAVE_ETHTOOL_LINK_MODE_100G \
> -		/usr/include/linux/ethtool.h \
> -		enum ETHTOOL_LINK_MODE_100000baseKR4_Full_BIT \
> -		$(AUTOCONF_OUTPUT)
>  
>  # Create mlx5_autoconf.h or update it in case it differs from the new one.
>  
> diff --git a/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_ethdev.c b/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_ethdev.c
> index 8efdff7..53599fa 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_ethdev.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_ethdev.c
> @@ -46,6 +46,7 @@
>  #include <netinet/in.h>
>  #include <linux/ethtool.h>
>  #include <linux/sockios.h>
> +#include <linux/version.h>
>  #include <fcntl.h>
>  
>  /* DPDK headers don't like -pedantic. */
> @@ -697,7 +698,7 @@ struct priv *
>  
>  /**
>   * Retrieve physical link information (unlocked version using new ioctl from
> - * Linux 4.5).
> + * Linux 4.9).
>   *
>   * @param dev
>   *   Pointer to Ethernet device structure.
> @@ -707,7 +708,7 @@ struct priv *
>  static int
>  mlx5_link_update_unlocked_gs(struct rte_eth_dev *dev, int wait_to_complete)
>  {
> -#ifdef ETHTOOL_GLINKSETTINGS
> +#if KERNEL_VERSION(4, 9, 0) <= LINUX_VERSION_CODE
>  	struct priv *priv = mlx5_get_priv(dev);
>  	struct ethtool_link_settings edata = {
>  		.cmd = ETHTOOL_GLINKSETTINGS,
> @@ -757,25 +758,18 @@ struct priv *
>  		  ETHTOOL_LINK_MODE_56000baseSR4_Full_BIT |
>  		  ETHTOOL_LINK_MODE_56000baseLR4_Full_BIT))
>  		priv->link_speed_capa |= ETH_LINK_SPEED_56G;
> -	/* Link speeds available in kernel v4.6. */
> -#ifdef HAVE_ETHTOOL_LINK_MODE_25G
>  	if (sc & (ETHTOOL_LINK_MODE_25000baseCR_Full_BIT |
>  		  ETHTOOL_LINK_MODE_25000baseKR_Full_BIT |
>  		  ETHTOOL_LINK_MODE_25000baseSR_Full_BIT))
>  		priv->link_speed_capa |= ETH_LINK_SPEED_25G;
> -#endif
> -#ifdef HAVE_ETHTOOL_LINK_MODE_50G
>  	if (sc & (ETHTOOL_LINK_MODE_50000baseCR2_Full_BIT |
>  		  ETHTOOL_LINK_MODE_50000baseKR2_Full_BIT))
>  		priv->link_speed_capa |= ETH_LINK_SPEED_50G;
> -#endif
> -#ifdef HAVE_ETHTOOL_LINK_MODE_100G
>  	if (sc & (ETHTOOL_LINK_MODE_100000baseKR4_Full_BIT |
>  		  ETHTOOL_LINK_MODE_100000baseSR4_Full_BIT |
>  		  ETHTOOL_LINK_MODE_100000baseCR4_Full_BIT |
>  		  ETHTOOL_LINK_MODE_100000baseLR4_ER4_Full_BIT))
>  		priv->link_speed_capa |= ETH_LINK_SPEED_100G;
> -#endif
>  	dev_link.link_duplex = ((edata.duplex == DUPLEX_HALF) ?
>  				ETH_LINK_HALF_DUPLEX : ETH_LINK_FULL_DUPLEX);
>  	dev_link.link_autoneg = !(dev->data->dev_conf.link_speeds &
> -- 
> 1.8.3.1

Acked-by: Nelio Laranjeiro <nelio.laranjeiro@6wind.com>
Ferruh Yigit Jan. 31, 2017, 4:17 p.m. | #2
On 1/31/2017 11:45 AM, Shahaf Shuler wrote:
> Trying to query the link status through new kernel ioctl API
> ETHTOOL_GLINKSETTINGS was always failing due to kernel bug.
> The bug was fixed on version 4.9
> this patch uses the legacy ioctl API for lower kernels.
> 
> Fixes: 188408719888 ("net/mlx5: fix support for newer link speeds")
> CC: stable@dpdk.org
> 
> Signed-off-by: Shahaf Shuler <shahafs@mellanox.com>
> ---

<...>

> @@ -707,7 +708,7 @@ struct priv *
>  static int
>  mlx5_link_update_unlocked_gs(struct rte_eth_dev *dev, int wait_to_complete)
>  {
> -#ifdef ETHTOOL_GLINKSETTINGS
> +#if KERNEL_VERSION(4, 9, 0) <= LINUX_VERSION_CODE

Mostly it is not good idea to do kernel version check in the .c file.

It is possible to move this comparison to the .h file, and set a feature
macro based on comparison result, like HAVE_ETHTOOL_GLINKSETTINGS, and
use this macro in the .c file.

This makes .c code easier to understand. And the abstraction in the
header file lets you update the comparison in the future without
changing the code itself.

But it is your call, do you prefer to continue with this one?

>  	struct priv *priv = mlx5_get_priv(dev);
>  	struct ethtool_link_settings edata = {
>  		.cmd = ETHTOOL_GLINKSETTINGS,
<...>
Shahaf Shuler Feb. 1, 2017, 6:53 a.m. | #3
: Tuesday, January 31, 2017 6:17 PM, Ferruh Yigit:
> On 1/31/2017 11:45 AM, Shahaf Shuler wrote:
> > Trying to query the link status through new kernel ioctl API
> > ETHTOOL_GLINKSETTINGS was always failing due to kernel bug.
> > The bug was fixed on version 4.9
> > this patch uses the legacy ioctl API for lower kernels.
> >
> > Fixes: 188408719888 ("net/mlx5: fix support for newer link speeds")
> > CC: stable@dpdk.org
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Shahaf Shuler <shahafs@mellanox.com>
> > ---
> 
> <...>
> 
> > @@ -707,7 +708,7 @@ struct priv *
> >  static int
> >  mlx5_link_update_unlocked_gs(struct rte_eth_dev *dev, int
> > wait_to_complete)  { -#ifdef ETHTOOL_GLINKSETTINGS
> > +#if KERNEL_VERSION(4, 9, 0) <= LINUX_VERSION_CODE
> 
> Mostly it is not good idea to do kernel version check in the .c file.
> 
> It is possible to move this comparison to the .h file, and set a feature
> macro based on comparison result, like HAVE_ETHTOOL_GLINKSETTINGS,
> and
> use this macro in the .c file.
> 
> This makes .c code easier to understand. And the abstraction in the
> header file lets you update the comparison in the future without
> changing the code itself.
> 
> But it is your call, do you prefer to continue with this one?

This is a good suggestion. 
Adrien, Nélio what do you think?

> 
> >  	struct priv *priv = mlx5_get_priv(dev);
> >  	struct ethtool_link_settings edata = {
> >  		.cmd = ETHTOOL_GLINKSETTINGS,
> <...>
Adrien Mazarguil Feb. 1, 2017, 9:07 a.m. | #4
On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 06:53:55AM +0000, Shahaf Shuler wrote:
> : Tuesday, January 31, 2017 6:17 PM, Ferruh Yigit:
> > On 1/31/2017 11:45 AM, Shahaf Shuler wrote:
> > > Trying to query the link status through new kernel ioctl API
> > > ETHTOOL_GLINKSETTINGS was always failing due to kernel bug.
> > > The bug was fixed on version 4.9
> > > this patch uses the legacy ioctl API for lower kernels.
> > >
> > > Fixes: 188408719888 ("net/mlx5: fix support for newer link speeds")
> > > CC: stable@dpdk.org
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Shahaf Shuler <shahafs@mellanox.com>
> > > ---
> > 
> > <...>
> > 
> > > @@ -707,7 +708,7 @@ struct priv *
> > >  static int
> > >  mlx5_link_update_unlocked_gs(struct rte_eth_dev *dev, int
> > > wait_to_complete)  { -#ifdef ETHTOOL_GLINKSETTINGS
> > > +#if KERNEL_VERSION(4, 9, 0) <= LINUX_VERSION_CODE
> > 
> > Mostly it is not good idea to do kernel version check in the .c file.
> > 
> > It is possible to move this comparison to the .h file, and set a feature
> > macro based on comparison result, like HAVE_ETHTOOL_GLINKSETTINGS,
> > and
> > use this macro in the .c file.
> > 
> > This makes .c code easier to understand. And the abstraction in the
> > header file lets you update the comparison in the future without
> > changing the code itself.
> > 
> > But it is your call, do you prefer to continue with this one?
> 
> This is a good suggestion. 
> Adrien, Nélio what do you think?

Let's include this patch as-is. Doing so in a header file such as mlx5.h
would require including linux/version.h from that file and cause the entire
PMD to be even more OS-dependent.

We'll move this check elsewhere in the future if we need several such
workarounds, thanks.

> > >  	struct priv *priv = mlx5_get_priv(dev);
> > >  	struct ethtool_link_settings edata = {
> > >  		.cmd = ETHTOOL_GLINKSETTINGS,
> > <...>
Ferruh Yigit Feb. 1, 2017, 11:13 a.m. | #5
On 2/1/2017 9:07 AM, Adrien Mazarguil wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 06:53:55AM +0000, Shahaf Shuler wrote:
>> : Tuesday, January 31, 2017 6:17 PM, Ferruh Yigit:
>>> On 1/31/2017 11:45 AM, Shahaf Shuler wrote:
>>>> Trying to query the link status through new kernel ioctl API
>>>> ETHTOOL_GLINKSETTINGS was always failing due to kernel bug.
>>>> The bug was fixed on version 4.9
>>>> this patch uses the legacy ioctl API for lower kernels.
>>>>
>>>> Fixes: 188408719888 ("net/mlx5: fix support for newer link speeds")
>>>> CC: stable@dpdk.org
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Shahaf Shuler <shahafs@mellanox.com>
>>>> ---
>>>
>>> <...>
>>>
>>>> @@ -707,7 +708,7 @@ struct priv *
>>>>  static int
>>>>  mlx5_link_update_unlocked_gs(struct rte_eth_dev *dev, int
>>>> wait_to_complete)  { -#ifdef ETHTOOL_GLINKSETTINGS
>>>> +#if KERNEL_VERSION(4, 9, 0) <= LINUX_VERSION_CODE
>>>
>>> Mostly it is not good idea to do kernel version check in the .c file.
>>>
>>> It is possible to move this comparison to the .h file, and set a feature
>>> macro based on comparison result, like HAVE_ETHTOOL_GLINKSETTINGS,
>>> and
>>> use this macro in the .c file.
>>>
>>> This makes .c code easier to understand. And the abstraction in the
>>> header file lets you update the comparison in the future without
>>> changing the code itself.
>>>
>>> But it is your call, do you prefer to continue with this one?
>>
>> This is a good suggestion. 
>> Adrien, Nélio what do you think?
> 
> Let's include this patch as-is. Doing so in a header file such as mlx5.h
> would require including linux/version.h from that file and cause the entire
> PMD to be even more OS-dependent.
> 
> We'll move this check elsewhere in the future if we need several such
> workarounds, thanks.

OK.

One more thing, comment log says:
"The bug was fixed on version 4.9"

And code does:
"+#if KERNEL_VERSION(4, 9, 0) <= LINUX_VERSION_CODE"

If the bug is fixed in 4.9, should check be "<" instead of "<="

> 
>>>>  	struct priv *priv = mlx5_get_priv(dev);
>>>>  	struct ethtool_link_settings edata = {
>>>>  		.cmd = ETHTOOL_GLINKSETTINGS,
>>> <...>
>
Adrien Mazarguil Feb. 1, 2017, 12:57 p.m. | #6
On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 11:13:59AM +0000, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> On 2/1/2017 9:07 AM, Adrien Mazarguil wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 06:53:55AM +0000, Shahaf Shuler wrote:
> >> : Tuesday, January 31, 2017 6:17 PM, Ferruh Yigit:
> >>> On 1/31/2017 11:45 AM, Shahaf Shuler wrote:
> >>>> Trying to query the link status through new kernel ioctl API
> >>>> ETHTOOL_GLINKSETTINGS was always failing due to kernel bug.
> >>>> The bug was fixed on version 4.9
> >>>> this patch uses the legacy ioctl API for lower kernels.
> >>>>
> >>>> Fixes: 188408719888 ("net/mlx5: fix support for newer link speeds")
> >>>> CC: stable@dpdk.org
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Shahaf Shuler <shahafs@mellanox.com>
> >>>> ---
> >>>
> >>> <...>
> >>>
> >>>> @@ -707,7 +708,7 @@ struct priv *
> >>>>  static int
> >>>>  mlx5_link_update_unlocked_gs(struct rte_eth_dev *dev, int
> >>>> wait_to_complete)  { -#ifdef ETHTOOL_GLINKSETTINGS
> >>>> +#if KERNEL_VERSION(4, 9, 0) <= LINUX_VERSION_CODE
> >>>
> >>> Mostly it is not good idea to do kernel version check in the .c file.
> >>>
> >>> It is possible to move this comparison to the .h file, and set a feature
> >>> macro based on comparison result, like HAVE_ETHTOOL_GLINKSETTINGS,
> >>> and
> >>> use this macro in the .c file.
> >>>
> >>> This makes .c code easier to understand. And the abstraction in the
> >>> header file lets you update the comparison in the future without
> >>> changing the code itself.
> >>>
> >>> But it is your call, do you prefer to continue with this one?
> >>
> >> This is a good suggestion. 
> >> Adrien, Nélio what do you think?
> > 
> > Let's include this patch as-is. Doing so in a header file such as mlx5.h
> > would require including linux/version.h from that file and cause the entire
> > PMD to be even more OS-dependent.
> > 
> > We'll move this check elsewhere in the future if we need several such
> > workarounds, thanks.
> 
> OK.
> 
> One more thing, comment log says:
> "The bug was fixed on version 4.9"
> 
> And code does:
> "+#if KERNEL_VERSION(4, 9, 0) <= LINUX_VERSION_CODE"
>
> If the bug is fixed in 4.9, should check be "<" instead of "<="

I'll concede the argument order used in this condition is somewhat unusual
but it actually ends up being the same as:

 #if LINUX_VERSION_CODE > KERNEL_VERSION(4, 9, 0)

Which is the correct intent. I guess you can update this line for clarity if
you think it's necessary.

> > 
> >>>>  	struct priv *priv = mlx5_get_priv(dev);
> >>>>  	struct ethtool_link_settings edata = {
> >>>>  		.cmd = ETHTOOL_GLINKSETTINGS,
> >>> <...>
> > 
>
Ferruh Yigit Feb. 1, 2017, 6:11 p.m. | #7
On 2/1/2017 12:57 PM, Adrien Mazarguil wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 11:13:59AM +0000, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>> On 2/1/2017 9:07 AM, Adrien Mazarguil wrote:
>>> On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 06:53:55AM +0000, Shahaf Shuler wrote:
>>>> : Tuesday, January 31, 2017 6:17 PM, Ferruh Yigit:
>>>>> On 1/31/2017 11:45 AM, Shahaf Shuler wrote:
>>>>>> Trying to query the link status through new kernel ioctl API
>>>>>> ETHTOOL_GLINKSETTINGS was always failing due to kernel bug.
>>>>>> The bug was fixed on version 4.9
>>>>>> this patch uses the legacy ioctl API for lower kernels.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fixes: 188408719888 ("net/mlx5: fix support for newer link speeds")
>>>>>> CC: stable@dpdk.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Shahaf Shuler <shahafs@mellanox.com>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>
>>>>> <...>
>>>>>
>>>>>> @@ -707,7 +708,7 @@ struct priv *
>>>>>>  static int
>>>>>>  mlx5_link_update_unlocked_gs(struct rte_eth_dev *dev, int
>>>>>> wait_to_complete)  { -#ifdef ETHTOOL_GLINKSETTINGS
>>>>>> +#if KERNEL_VERSION(4, 9, 0) <= LINUX_VERSION_CODE
>>>>>
>>>>> Mostly it is not good idea to do kernel version check in the .c file.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is possible to move this comparison to the .h file, and set a feature
>>>>> macro based on comparison result, like HAVE_ETHTOOL_GLINKSETTINGS,
>>>>> and
>>>>> use this macro in the .c file.
>>>>>
>>>>> This makes .c code easier to understand. And the abstraction in the
>>>>> header file lets you update the comparison in the future without
>>>>> changing the code itself.
>>>>>
>>>>> But it is your call, do you prefer to continue with this one?
>>>>
>>>> This is a good suggestion. 
>>>> Adrien, Nélio what do you think?
>>>
>>> Let's include this patch as-is. Doing so in a header file such as mlx5.h
>>> would require including linux/version.h from that file and cause the entire
>>> PMD to be even more OS-dependent.
>>>
>>> We'll move this check elsewhere in the future if we need several such
>>> workarounds, thanks.
>>
>> OK.
>>
>> One more thing, comment log says:
>> "The bug was fixed on version 4.9"
>>
>> And code does:
>> "+#if KERNEL_VERSION(4, 9, 0) <= LINUX_VERSION_CODE"
>>
>> If the bug is fixed in 4.9, should check be "<" instead of "<="
> 
> I'll concede the argument order used in this condition is somewhat unusual
> but it actually ends up being the same as:
> 
>  #if LINUX_VERSION_CODE > KERNEL_VERSION(4, 9, 0)

I don't think they are same, unless I am missing something obvious.

"+#if KERNEL_VERSION(4, 9, 0) <= LINUX_VERSION_CODE"
vs
"#if LINUX_VERSION_CODE > KERNEL_VERSION(4, 9, 0)"

Even if you change the argument order, one covers 4.9 release other not.

> 
> Which is the correct intent. I guess you can update this line for clarity if
> you think it's necessary.

If the intention is as following, I can fix it while applying:
#if KERNEL_VERSION(4, 9, 0) < LINUX_VERSION_CODE

> 
>>>
>>>>>>  	struct priv *priv = mlx5_get_priv(dev);
>>>>>>  	struct ethtool_link_settings edata = {
>>>>>>  		.cmd = ETHTOOL_GLINKSETTINGS,
>>>>> <...>
>>>
>>
>
Ferruh Yigit Feb. 1, 2017, 6:31 p.m. | #8
On 1/31/2017 3:42 PM, Nélio Laranjeiro wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 01:45:29PM +0200, Shahaf Shuler wrote:
>> Trying to query the link status through new kernel ioctl API
>> ETHTOOL_GLINKSETTINGS was always failing due to kernel bug.
>> The bug was fixed on version 4.9
>> this patch uses the legacy ioctl API for lower kernels.
>>
>> Fixes: 188408719888 ("net/mlx5: fix support for newer link speeds")
>> CC: stable@dpdk.org
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Shahaf Shuler <shahafs@mellanox.com>

> Acked-by: Nelio Laranjeiro <nelio.laranjeiro@6wind.com>

Applied to dpdk-next-net/master, thanks.

(Updated kernel version check to:
"+#if KERNEL_VERSION(4, 9, 0) < LINUX_VERSION_CODE")
Nélio Laranjeiro Feb. 2, 2017, 8:20 a.m. | #9
On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 06:31:17PM +0000, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> On 1/31/2017 3:42 PM, Nélio Laranjeiro wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 01:45:29PM +0200, Shahaf Shuler wrote:
> >> Trying to query the link status through new kernel ioctl API
> >> ETHTOOL_GLINKSETTINGS was always failing due to kernel bug.
> >> The bug was fixed on version 4.9
> >> this patch uses the legacy ioctl API for lower kernels.
> >>
> >> Fixes: 188408719888 ("net/mlx5: fix support for newer link speeds")
> >> CC: stable@dpdk.org
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Shahaf Shuler <shahafs@mellanox.com>
> 
> > Acked-by: Nelio Laranjeiro <nelio.laranjeiro@6wind.com>
> 
> Applied to dpdk-next-net/master, thanks.
> 
> (Updated kernel version check to:
> "+#if KERNEL_VERSION(4, 9, 0) < LINUX_VERSION_CODE")

Ferruh,

The issue is fixed in 4.9, so <= 4.9 is correct.

Am I missing something?

Regards,
Adrien Mazarguil Feb. 2, 2017, 8:45 a.m. | #10
On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 06:11:17PM +0000, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> On 2/1/2017 12:57 PM, Adrien Mazarguil wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 11:13:59AM +0000, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> >> On 2/1/2017 9:07 AM, Adrien Mazarguil wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 06:53:55AM +0000, Shahaf Shuler wrote:
> >>>> : Tuesday, January 31, 2017 6:17 PM, Ferruh Yigit:
> >>>>> On 1/31/2017 11:45 AM, Shahaf Shuler wrote:
> >>>>>> Trying to query the link status through new kernel ioctl API
> >>>>>> ETHTOOL_GLINKSETTINGS was always failing due to kernel bug.
> >>>>>> The bug was fixed on version 4.9
> >>>>>> this patch uses the legacy ioctl API for lower kernels.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Fixes: 188408719888 ("net/mlx5: fix support for newer link speeds")
> >>>>>> CC: stable@dpdk.org
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Shahaf Shuler <shahafs@mellanox.com>
> >>>>>> ---
> >>>>>
> >>>>> <...>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> @@ -707,7 +708,7 @@ struct priv *
> >>>>>>  static int
> >>>>>>  mlx5_link_update_unlocked_gs(struct rte_eth_dev *dev, int
> >>>>>> wait_to_complete)  { -#ifdef ETHTOOL_GLINKSETTINGS
> >>>>>> +#if KERNEL_VERSION(4, 9, 0) <= LINUX_VERSION_CODE
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Mostly it is not good idea to do kernel version check in the .c file.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It is possible to move this comparison to the .h file, and set a feature
> >>>>> macro based on comparison result, like HAVE_ETHTOOL_GLINKSETTINGS,
> >>>>> and
> >>>>> use this macro in the .c file.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This makes .c code easier to understand. And the abstraction in the
> >>>>> header file lets you update the comparison in the future without
> >>>>> changing the code itself.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> But it is your call, do you prefer to continue with this one?
> >>>>
> >>>> This is a good suggestion. 
> >>>> Adrien, Nélio what do you think?
> >>>
> >>> Let's include this patch as-is. Doing so in a header file such as mlx5.h
> >>> would require including linux/version.h from that file and cause the entire
> >>> PMD to be even more OS-dependent.
> >>>
> >>> We'll move this check elsewhere in the future if we need several such
> >>> workarounds, thanks.
> >>
> >> OK.
> >>
> >> One more thing, comment log says:
> >> "The bug was fixed on version 4.9"
> >>
> >> And code does:
> >> "+#if KERNEL_VERSION(4, 9, 0) <= LINUX_VERSION_CODE"
> >>
> >> If the bug is fixed in 4.9, should check be "<" instead of "<="
> > 
> > I'll concede the argument order used in this condition is somewhat unusual
> > but it actually ends up being the same as:
> > 
> >  #if LINUX_VERSION_CODE > KERNEL_VERSION(4, 9, 0)
> 
> I don't think they are same, unless I am missing something obvious.
> 
> "+#if KERNEL_VERSION(4, 9, 0) <= LINUX_VERSION_CODE"
> vs
> "#if LINUX_VERSION_CODE > KERNEL_VERSION(4, 9, 0)"
> 
> Even if you change the argument order, one covers 4.9 release other not.

All right, turns out we're both wrong because it should have been >= anyway
regardless of the order as you pointed out. The block must appear when
kernel version is higher or equal to 4.9.0.

Now I think there are a couple of additional issues with this patch that
require a revert and rework:

- Kernel headers do not necessarily match the running version. What if this
  code is compiled against a 4.10.0 source tree and the running kernel is
  4.5? How about the reverse?

- By removing the check on ETHTOOL_GLINKSETTINGS, this code breaks
  compilation for Linux kernel version < 4.5, which I think is a problem.

So I believe this patch should be re-worked to maintain a check on
ETHTOOL_GLINKSETTINGS (or define it then not present) and perform an
additional version check at runtime to use the most appropriate ioctl API.

Ferruh, please revert.

stable@dpdk.org, please ignore this commit for the the time being, and sorry
for the noise.

> > Which is the correct intent. I guess you can update this line for clarity if
> > you think it's necessary.
> 
> If the intention is as following, I can fix it while applying:
> #if KERNEL_VERSION(4, 9, 0) < LINUX_VERSION_CODE
> 
> > 
> >>>
> >>>>>>  	struct priv *priv = mlx5_get_priv(dev);
> >>>>>>  	struct ethtool_link_settings edata = {
> >>>>>>  		.cmd = ETHTOOL_GLINKSETTINGS,
> >>>>> <...>
> >>>
> >>
> > 
>
Ferruh Yigit Feb. 2, 2017, 10:15 a.m. | #11
On 2/2/2017 8:45 AM, Adrien Mazarguil wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 06:11:17PM +0000, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>> On 2/1/2017 12:57 PM, Adrien Mazarguil wrote:
>>> On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 11:13:59AM +0000, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>>>> On 2/1/2017 9:07 AM, Adrien Mazarguil wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 06:53:55AM +0000, Shahaf Shuler wrote:
>>>>>> : Tuesday, January 31, 2017 6:17 PM, Ferruh Yigit:
>>>>>>> On 1/31/2017 11:45 AM, Shahaf Shuler wrote:
>>>>>>>> Trying to query the link status through new kernel ioctl API
>>>>>>>> ETHTOOL_GLINKSETTINGS was always failing due to kernel bug.
>>>>>>>> The bug was fixed on version 4.9
>>>>>>>> this patch uses the legacy ioctl API for lower kernels.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Fixes: 188408719888 ("net/mlx5: fix support for newer link speeds")
>>>>>>>> CC: stable@dpdk.org
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Shahaf Shuler <shahafs@mellanox.com>
>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <...>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> @@ -707,7 +708,7 @@ struct priv *
>>>>>>>>  static int
>>>>>>>>  mlx5_link_update_unlocked_gs(struct rte_eth_dev *dev, int
>>>>>>>> wait_to_complete)  { -#ifdef ETHTOOL_GLINKSETTINGS
>>>>>>>> +#if KERNEL_VERSION(4, 9, 0) <= LINUX_VERSION_CODE
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mostly it is not good idea to do kernel version check in the .c file.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is possible to move this comparison to the .h file, and set a feature
>>>>>>> macro based on comparison result, like HAVE_ETHTOOL_GLINKSETTINGS,
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> use this macro in the .c file.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This makes .c code easier to understand. And the abstraction in the
>>>>>>> header file lets you update the comparison in the future without
>>>>>>> changing the code itself.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But it is your call, do you prefer to continue with this one?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is a good suggestion. 
>>>>>> Adrien, Nélio what do you think?
>>>>>
>>>>> Let's include this patch as-is. Doing so in a header file such as mlx5.h
>>>>> would require including linux/version.h from that file and cause the entire
>>>>> PMD to be even more OS-dependent.
>>>>>
>>>>> We'll move this check elsewhere in the future if we need several such
>>>>> workarounds, thanks.
>>>>
>>>> OK.
>>>>
>>>> One more thing, comment log says:
>>>> "The bug was fixed on version 4.9"
>>>>
>>>> And code does:
>>>> "+#if KERNEL_VERSION(4, 9, 0) <= LINUX_VERSION_CODE"
>>>>
>>>> If the bug is fixed in 4.9, should check be "<" instead of "<="
>>>
>>> I'll concede the argument order used in this condition is somewhat unusual
>>> but it actually ends up being the same as:
>>>
>>>  #if LINUX_VERSION_CODE > KERNEL_VERSION(4, 9, 0)
>>
>> I don't think they are same, unless I am missing something obvious.
>>
>> "+#if KERNEL_VERSION(4, 9, 0) <= LINUX_VERSION_CODE"
>> vs
>> "#if LINUX_VERSION_CODE > KERNEL_VERSION(4, 9, 0)"
>>
>> Even if you change the argument order, one covers 4.9 release other not.
> 
> All right, turns out we're both wrong because it should have been >= anyway
> regardless of the order as you pointed out. The block must appear when
> kernel version is higher or equal to 4.9.0.

I see now, my logic was wrong, and I can see what are you trying to
explain by changing argument order, thanks ...

> 
> Now I think there are a couple of additional issues with this patch that
> require a revert and rework:
> 
> - Kernel headers do not necessarily match the running version. What if this
>   code is compiled against a 4.10.0 source tree and the running kernel is
>   4.5? How about the reverse?

It is possible to use proper kernel headers via RTE_KERNELDIR
environment variable.

But without this patch, /usr/include/linux/ethtool.h used directly in
Makefile, which has same problem you mentioned.

> 
> - By removing the check on ETHTOOL_GLINKSETTINGS, this code breaks
>   compilation for Linux kernel version < 4.5, which I think is a problem.

Please help me understand.

ETHTOOL_GLINKSETTINGS defined for kernels > 4.5, and this patch replaces
"#ifdef ETHTOOL_GLINKSETTINGS"
with
"#if KERNEL_VERSION(4, 9, 0) <= LINUX_VERSION_CODE"

So, kernel version <= 4.5 part should be same, why it is giving a
compile error?

> 
> So I believe this patch should be re-worked to maintain a check on
> ETHTOOL_GLINKSETTINGS (or define it then not present) and perform an
> additional version check at runtime to use the most appropriate ioctl API.

Overall, it would be better if you can find a way without dealing kernel
versions, which causes lots of maintenance work.

Also another issue we are experiencing while maintaining KNI is
backported kernels, they tend to break version based checks. So there
are distro based checks combined with version checks, I think this
wouldn't be something you want J

> 
> Ferruh, please revert.


But original patch looks good, I will convert it to initial patch, and
keep it until above two items clarified.

> 
> stable@dpdk.org, please ignore this commit for the the time being, and sorry
> for the noise.
> 
>>> Which is the correct intent. I guess you can update this line for clarity if
>>> you think it's necessary.
>>
>> If the intention is as following, I can fix it while applying:
>> #if KERNEL_VERSION(4, 9, 0) < LINUX_VERSION_CODE
>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>  	struct priv *priv = mlx5_get_priv(dev);
>>>>>>>>  	struct ethtool_link_settings edata = {
>>>>>>>>  		.cmd = ETHTOOL_GLINKSETTINGS,
>>>>>>> <...>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
Ferruh Yigit Feb. 2, 2017, 10:18 a.m. | #12
On 2/2/2017 8:20 AM, Nélio Laranjeiro wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 06:31:17PM +0000, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>> On 1/31/2017 3:42 PM, Nélio Laranjeiro wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 01:45:29PM +0200, Shahaf Shuler wrote:
>>>> Trying to query the link status through new kernel ioctl API
>>>> ETHTOOL_GLINKSETTINGS was always failing due to kernel bug.
>>>> The bug was fixed on version 4.9
>>>> this patch uses the legacy ioctl API for lower kernels.
>>>>
>>>> Fixes: 188408719888 ("net/mlx5: fix support for newer link speeds")
>>>> CC: stable@dpdk.org
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Shahaf Shuler <shahafs@mellanox.com>
>>
>>> Acked-by: Nelio Laranjeiro <nelio.laranjeiro@6wind.com>
>>
>> Applied to dpdk-next-net/master, thanks.
>>
>> (Updated kernel version check to:
>> "+#if KERNEL_VERSION(4, 9, 0) < LINUX_VERSION_CODE")
> 
> Ferruh,
> 
> The issue is fixed in 4.9, so <= 4.9 is correct.
> 
> Am I missing something?

My bad Nelio,

I converted back to original, please check.

> 
> Regards,
>
Adrien Mazarguil Feb. 2, 2017, 10:37 a.m. | #13
On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 10:15:08AM +0000, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> On 2/2/2017 8:45 AM, Adrien Mazarguil wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 06:11:17PM +0000, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> >> On 2/1/2017 12:57 PM, Adrien Mazarguil wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 11:13:59AM +0000, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> >>>> On 2/1/2017 9:07 AM, Adrien Mazarguil wrote:
> >>>>> On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 06:53:55AM +0000, Shahaf Shuler wrote:
> >>>>>> : Tuesday, January 31, 2017 6:17 PM, Ferruh Yigit:
> >>>>>>> On 1/31/2017 11:45 AM, Shahaf Shuler wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Trying to query the link status through new kernel ioctl API
> >>>>>>>> ETHTOOL_GLINKSETTINGS was always failing due to kernel bug.
> >>>>>>>> The bug was fixed on version 4.9
> >>>>>>>> this patch uses the legacy ioctl API for lower kernels.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Fixes: 188408719888 ("net/mlx5: fix support for newer link speeds")
> >>>>>>>> CC: stable@dpdk.org
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Shahaf Shuler <shahafs@mellanox.com>
> >>>>>>>> ---
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> <...>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> @@ -707,7 +708,7 @@ struct priv *
> >>>>>>>>  static int
> >>>>>>>>  mlx5_link_update_unlocked_gs(struct rte_eth_dev *dev, int
> >>>>>>>> wait_to_complete)  { -#ifdef ETHTOOL_GLINKSETTINGS
> >>>>>>>> +#if KERNEL_VERSION(4, 9, 0) <= LINUX_VERSION_CODE
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Mostly it is not good idea to do kernel version check in the .c file.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> It is possible to move this comparison to the .h file, and set a feature
> >>>>>>> macro based on comparison result, like HAVE_ETHTOOL_GLINKSETTINGS,
> >>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>> use this macro in the .c file.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> This makes .c code easier to understand. And the abstraction in the
> >>>>>>> header file lets you update the comparison in the future without
> >>>>>>> changing the code itself.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> But it is your call, do you prefer to continue with this one?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> This is a good suggestion. 
> >>>>>> Adrien, Nélio what do you think?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Let's include this patch as-is. Doing so in a header file such as mlx5.h
> >>>>> would require including linux/version.h from that file and cause the entire
> >>>>> PMD to be even more OS-dependent.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> We'll move this check elsewhere in the future if we need several such
> >>>>> workarounds, thanks.
> >>>>
> >>>> OK.
> >>>>
> >>>> One more thing, comment log says:
> >>>> "The bug was fixed on version 4.9"
> >>>>
> >>>> And code does:
> >>>> "+#if KERNEL_VERSION(4, 9, 0) <= LINUX_VERSION_CODE"
> >>>>
> >>>> If the bug is fixed in 4.9, should check be "<" instead of "<="
> >>>
> >>> I'll concede the argument order used in this condition is somewhat unusual
> >>> but it actually ends up being the same as:
> >>>
> >>>  #if LINUX_VERSION_CODE > KERNEL_VERSION(4, 9, 0)
> >>
> >> I don't think they are same, unless I am missing something obvious.
> >>
> >> "+#if KERNEL_VERSION(4, 9, 0) <= LINUX_VERSION_CODE"
> >> vs
> >> "#if LINUX_VERSION_CODE > KERNEL_VERSION(4, 9, 0)"
> >>
> >> Even if you change the argument order, one covers 4.9 release other not.
> > 
> > All right, turns out we're both wrong because it should have been >= anyway
> > regardless of the order as you pointed out. The block must appear when
> > kernel version is higher or equal to 4.9.0.
> 
> I see now, my logic was wrong, and I can see what are you trying to
> explain by changing argument order, thanks ...
> 
> > 
> > Now I think there are a couple of additional issues with this patch that
> > require a revert and rework:
> > 
> > - Kernel headers do not necessarily match the running version. What if this
> >   code is compiled against a 4.10.0 source tree and the running kernel is
> >   4.5? How about the reverse?
> 
> It is possible to use proper kernel headers via RTE_KERNELDIR
> environment variable.
> 
> But without this patch, /usr/include/linux/ethtool.h used directly in
> Makefile, which has same problem you mentioned.

Right, what I'm getting at is this code is supposed to work regardless of
the running kernel version (uname -r), userland headers version
(/usr/include/linux) and source tree version (/usr/src/linux/), all of them
may differ. Basically this PMD can be built on a system and run on another
since it's not a kernel module. In short the following scenarios should be
handled:

- Kernel (uname -r) is 3.2, /usr/include/linux comes from 4.5, and
  /usr/src/linux comes from 4.10.

- Kernel (uname -r) is 4.10, /usr/include/linux comes from 3.2 and 
  /usr/src/linux does not even exist.

- Kernel (uname -r) is 4.8, /usr/include/linux comes from 4.9.

- Kernel (uname -r) is 4.9, /usr/include/linux comes from 4.9 (when one gets
  lucky enough).

> > - By removing the check on ETHTOOL_GLINKSETTINGS, this code breaks
> >   compilation for Linux kernel version < 4.5, which I think is a problem.
> 
> Please help me understand.
> 
> ETHTOOL_GLINKSETTINGS defined for kernels > 4.5, and this patch replaces
> "#ifdef ETHTOOL_GLINKSETTINGS"
> with
> "#if KERNEL_VERSION(4, 9, 0) <= LINUX_VERSION_CODE"
> 
> So, kernel version <= 4.5 part should be same, why it is giving a
> compile error?

You're right, ETHTOOL_GLINKSETTINGS should be consistent with
LINUX_VERSION_CODE since both includes come from the same
directory. We normally don't need to manage the case where a system has
broken includes, however as you're pointing out below distributions
sometimes make backports and the kernel version means nothing. Relying on
ETHTOOL_GLINKSETTINGS's presence makes more sense.

> > So I believe this patch should be re-worked to maintain a check on
> > ETHTOOL_GLINKSETTINGS (or define it then not present) and perform an
> > additional version check at runtime to use the most appropriate ioctl API.
> 
> Overall, it would be better if you can find a way without dealing kernel
> versions, which causes lots of maintenance work.

My thought as well.

> Also another issue we are experiencing while maintaining KNI is
> backported kernels, they tend to break version based checks. So there
> are distro based checks combined with version checks, I think this
> wouldn't be something you want J

Yeah, especially since it's not a kernel module, a PMD must perform a
runtime version check.

> > Ferruh, please revert.
> 
> 
> But original patch looks good, I will convert it to initial patch, and
> keep it until above two items clarified.

I've talked to Shahaf/Nelio, they already intend to send an updated version
due to the above concerns. Do you prefer a fix on top of it?

> > stable@dpdk.org, please ignore this commit for the the time being, and sorry
> > for the noise.
> > 
> >>> Which is the correct intent. I guess you can update this line for clarity if
> >>> you think it's necessary.
> >>
> >> If the intention is as following, I can fix it while applying:
> >> #if KERNEL_VERSION(4, 9, 0) < LINUX_VERSION_CODE
> >>
> >>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>  	struct priv *priv = mlx5_get_priv(dev);
> >>>>>>>>  	struct ethtool_link_settings edata = {
> >>>>>>>>  		.cmd = ETHTOOL_GLINKSETTINGS,
> >>>>>>> <...>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> > 
>
Ferruh Yigit Feb. 2, 2017, 10:43 a.m. | #14
On 2/2/2017 10:37 AM, Adrien Mazarguil wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 10:15:08AM +0000, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>> On 2/2/2017 8:45 AM, Adrien Mazarguil wrote:
>>> On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 06:11:17PM +0000, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>>>> On 2/1/2017 12:57 PM, Adrien Mazarguil wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 11:13:59AM +0000, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/1/2017 9:07 AM, Adrien Mazarguil wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 06:53:55AM +0000, Shahaf Shuler wrote:
>>>>>>>> : Tuesday, January 31, 2017 6:17 PM, Ferruh Yigit:
>>>>>>>>> On 1/31/2017 11:45 AM, Shahaf Shuler wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Trying to query the link status through new kernel ioctl API
>>>>>>>>>> ETHTOOL_GLINKSETTINGS was always failing due to kernel bug.
>>>>>>>>>> The bug was fixed on version 4.9
>>>>>>>>>> this patch uses the legacy ioctl API for lower kernels.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Fixes: 188408719888 ("net/mlx5: fix support for newer link speeds")
>>>>>>>>>> CC: stable@dpdk.org
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Shahaf Shuler <shahafs@mellanox.com>
>>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <...>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> @@ -707,7 +708,7 @@ struct priv *
>>>>>>>>>>  static int
>>>>>>>>>>  mlx5_link_update_unlocked_gs(struct rte_eth_dev *dev, int
>>>>>>>>>> wait_to_complete)  { -#ifdef ETHTOOL_GLINKSETTINGS
>>>>>>>>>> +#if KERNEL_VERSION(4, 9, 0) <= LINUX_VERSION_CODE
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Mostly it is not good idea to do kernel version check in the .c file.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It is possible to move this comparison to the .h file, and set a feature
>>>>>>>>> macro based on comparison result, like HAVE_ETHTOOL_GLINKSETTINGS,
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> use this macro in the .c file.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This makes .c code easier to understand. And the abstraction in the
>>>>>>>>> header file lets you update the comparison in the future without
>>>>>>>>> changing the code itself.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But it is your call, do you prefer to continue with this one?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is a good suggestion. 
>>>>>>>> Adrien, Nélio what do you think?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Let's include this patch as-is. Doing so in a header file such as mlx5.h
>>>>>>> would require including linux/version.h from that file and cause the entire
>>>>>>> PMD to be even more OS-dependent.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We'll move this check elsewhere in the future if we need several such
>>>>>>> workarounds, thanks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> OK.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One more thing, comment log says:
>>>>>> "The bug was fixed on version 4.9"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And code does:
>>>>>> "+#if KERNEL_VERSION(4, 9, 0) <= LINUX_VERSION_CODE"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If the bug is fixed in 4.9, should check be "<" instead of "<="
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll concede the argument order used in this condition is somewhat unusual
>>>>> but it actually ends up being the same as:
>>>>>
>>>>>  #if LINUX_VERSION_CODE > KERNEL_VERSION(4, 9, 0)
>>>>
>>>> I don't think they are same, unless I am missing something obvious.
>>>>
>>>> "+#if KERNEL_VERSION(4, 9, 0) <= LINUX_VERSION_CODE"
>>>> vs
>>>> "#if LINUX_VERSION_CODE > KERNEL_VERSION(4, 9, 0)"
>>>>
>>>> Even if you change the argument order, one covers 4.9 release other not.
>>>
>>> All right, turns out we're both wrong because it should have been >= anyway
>>> regardless of the order as you pointed out. The block must appear when
>>> kernel version is higher or equal to 4.9.0.
>>
>> I see now, my logic was wrong, and I can see what are you trying to
>> explain by changing argument order, thanks ...
>>
>>>
>>> Now I think there are a couple of additional issues with this patch that
>>> require a revert and rework:
>>>
>>> - Kernel headers do not necessarily match the running version. What if this
>>>   code is compiled against a 4.10.0 source tree and the running kernel is
>>>   4.5? How about the reverse?
>>
>> It is possible to use proper kernel headers via RTE_KERNELDIR
>> environment variable.
>>
>> But without this patch, /usr/include/linux/ethtool.h used directly in
>> Makefile, which has same problem you mentioned.
> 
> Right, what I'm getting at is this code is supposed to work regardless of
> the running kernel version (uname -r), userland headers version
> (/usr/include/linux) and source tree version (/usr/src/linux/), all of them
> may differ. Basically this PMD can be built on a system and run on another
> since it's not a kernel module. In short the following scenarios should be
> handled:
> 
> - Kernel (uname -r) is 3.2, /usr/include/linux comes from 4.5, and
>   /usr/src/linux comes from 4.10.
> 
> - Kernel (uname -r) is 4.10, /usr/include/linux comes from 3.2 and 
>   /usr/src/linux does not even exist.
> 
> - Kernel (uname -r) is 4.8, /usr/include/linux comes from 4.9.
> 
> - Kernel (uname -r) is 4.9, /usr/include/linux comes from 4.9 (when one gets
>   lucky enough).
> 
>>> - By removing the check on ETHTOOL_GLINKSETTINGS, this code breaks
>>>   compilation for Linux kernel version < 4.5, which I think is a problem.
>>
>> Please help me understand.
>>
>> ETHTOOL_GLINKSETTINGS defined for kernels > 4.5, and this patch replaces
>> "#ifdef ETHTOOL_GLINKSETTINGS"
>> with
>> "#if KERNEL_VERSION(4, 9, 0) <= LINUX_VERSION_CODE"
>>
>> So, kernel version <= 4.5 part should be same, why it is giving a
>> compile error?
> 
> You're right, ETHTOOL_GLINKSETTINGS should be consistent with
> LINUX_VERSION_CODE since both includes come from the same
> directory. We normally don't need to manage the case where a system has
> broken includes, however as you're pointing out below distributions
> sometimes make backports and the kernel version means nothing. Relying on
> ETHTOOL_GLINKSETTINGS's presence makes more sense.
> 
>>> So I believe this patch should be re-worked to maintain a check on
>>> ETHTOOL_GLINKSETTINGS (or define it then not present) and perform an
>>> additional version check at runtime to use the most appropriate ioctl API.
>>
>> Overall, it would be better if you can find a way without dealing kernel
>> versions, which causes lots of maintenance work.
> 
> My thought as well.
> 
>> Also another issue we are experiencing while maintaining KNI is
>> backported kernels, they tend to break version based checks. So there
>> are distro based checks combined with version checks, I think this
>> wouldn't be something you want J
> 
> Yeah, especially since it's not a kernel module, a PMD must perform a
> runtime version check.
> 
>>> Ferruh, please revert.
>>
>>
>> But original patch looks good, I will convert it to initial patch, and
>> keep it until above two items clarified.
> 
> I've talked to Shahaf/Nelio, they already intend to send an updated version
> due to the above concerns. Do you prefer a fix on top of it?

No, if there will be a new version, I will drop the existing one in the
repo.

> 
>>> stable@dpdk.org, please ignore this commit for the the time being, and sorry
>>> for the noise.
>>>
>>>>> Which is the correct intent. I guess you can update this line for clarity if
>>>>> you think it's necessary.
>>>>
>>>> If the intention is as following, I can fix it while applying:
>>>> #if KERNEL_VERSION(4, 9, 0) < LINUX_VERSION_CODE
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>  	struct priv *priv = mlx5_get_priv(dev);
>>>>>>>>>>  	struct ethtool_link_settings edata = {
>>>>>>>>>>  		.cmd = ETHTOOL_GLINKSETTINGS,
>>>>>>>>> <...>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

Patch

diff --git a/drivers/net/mlx5/Makefile b/drivers/net/mlx5/Makefile
index 671089c..0b8f7ba 100644
--- a/drivers/net/mlx5/Makefile
+++ b/drivers/net/mlx5/Makefile
@@ -122,21 +122,6 @@  mlx5_autoconf.h.new: $(RTE_SDK)/buildtools/auto-config-h.sh
 		infiniband/mlx5_hw.h \
 		enum MLX5_OPCODE_TSO \
 		$(AUTOCONF_OUTPUT)
-	$Q sh -- '$<' '$@' \
-		HAVE_ETHTOOL_LINK_MODE_25G \
-		/usr/include/linux/ethtool.h \
-		enum ETHTOOL_LINK_MODE_25000baseCR_Full_BIT \
-		$(AUTOCONF_OUTPUT)
-	$Q sh -- '$<' '$@' \
-		HAVE_ETHTOOL_LINK_MODE_50G \
-		/usr/include/linux/ethtool.h \
-		enum ETHTOOL_LINK_MODE_50000baseCR2_Full_BIT \
-		$(AUTOCONF_OUTPUT)
-	$Q sh -- '$<' '$@' \
-		HAVE_ETHTOOL_LINK_MODE_100G \
-		/usr/include/linux/ethtool.h \
-		enum ETHTOOL_LINK_MODE_100000baseKR4_Full_BIT \
-		$(AUTOCONF_OUTPUT)
 
 # Create mlx5_autoconf.h or update it in case it differs from the new one.
 
diff --git a/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_ethdev.c b/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_ethdev.c
index 8efdff7..53599fa 100644
--- a/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_ethdev.c
+++ b/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_ethdev.c
@@ -46,6 +46,7 @@ 
 #include <netinet/in.h>
 #include <linux/ethtool.h>
 #include <linux/sockios.h>
+#include <linux/version.h>
 #include <fcntl.h>
 
 /* DPDK headers don't like -pedantic. */
@@ -697,7 +698,7 @@  struct priv *
 
 /**
  * Retrieve physical link information (unlocked version using new ioctl from
- * Linux 4.5).
+ * Linux 4.9).
  *
  * @param dev
  *   Pointer to Ethernet device structure.
@@ -707,7 +708,7 @@  struct priv *
 static int
 mlx5_link_update_unlocked_gs(struct rte_eth_dev *dev, int wait_to_complete)
 {
-#ifdef ETHTOOL_GLINKSETTINGS
+#if KERNEL_VERSION(4, 9, 0) <= LINUX_VERSION_CODE
 	struct priv *priv = mlx5_get_priv(dev);
 	struct ethtool_link_settings edata = {
 		.cmd = ETHTOOL_GLINKSETTINGS,
@@ -757,25 +758,18 @@  struct priv *
 		  ETHTOOL_LINK_MODE_56000baseSR4_Full_BIT |
 		  ETHTOOL_LINK_MODE_56000baseLR4_Full_BIT))
 		priv->link_speed_capa |= ETH_LINK_SPEED_56G;
-	/* Link speeds available in kernel v4.6. */
-#ifdef HAVE_ETHTOOL_LINK_MODE_25G
 	if (sc & (ETHTOOL_LINK_MODE_25000baseCR_Full_BIT |
 		  ETHTOOL_LINK_MODE_25000baseKR_Full_BIT |
 		  ETHTOOL_LINK_MODE_25000baseSR_Full_BIT))
 		priv->link_speed_capa |= ETH_LINK_SPEED_25G;
-#endif
-#ifdef HAVE_ETHTOOL_LINK_MODE_50G
 	if (sc & (ETHTOOL_LINK_MODE_50000baseCR2_Full_BIT |
 		  ETHTOOL_LINK_MODE_50000baseKR2_Full_BIT))
 		priv->link_speed_capa |= ETH_LINK_SPEED_50G;
-#endif
-#ifdef HAVE_ETHTOOL_LINK_MODE_100G
 	if (sc & (ETHTOOL_LINK_MODE_100000baseKR4_Full_BIT |
 		  ETHTOOL_LINK_MODE_100000baseSR4_Full_BIT |
 		  ETHTOOL_LINK_MODE_100000baseCR4_Full_BIT |
 		  ETHTOOL_LINK_MODE_100000baseLR4_ER4_Full_BIT))
 		priv->link_speed_capa |= ETH_LINK_SPEED_100G;
-#endif
 	dev_link.link_duplex = ((edata.duplex == DUPLEX_HALF) ?
 				ETH_LINK_HALF_DUPLEX : ETH_LINK_FULL_DUPLEX);
 	dev_link.link_autoneg = !(dev->data->dev_conf.link_speeds &