[v3] net/hns3: fix parse link fails code fail
Checks
Commit Message
From: Chengwen Feng <fengchengwen@huawei.com>
The link fails code should be parsed using the structure
hns3_mbx_vf_to_pf_cmd, else it will parse fail.
Fixes: 109e4dd1bd7a ("net/hns3: get link state change through mailbox")
Cc: stable@dpdk.org
Signed-off-by: Chengwen Feng <fengchengwen@huawei.com>
Signed-off-by: Min Hu (Connor) <humin29@huawei.com>
---
v3:
* get the parameter as 'struct hns3_mbx_vf_to_pf_cmd' at first place.
v2:
* kept original API interface.
---
drivers/net/hns3/hns3_mbx.c | 11 +++++++++--
1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
Comments
On 4/27/2021 1:17 PM, Min Hu (Connor) wrote:
> From: Chengwen Feng <fengchengwen@huawei.com>
>
> The link fails code should be parsed using the structure
> hns3_mbx_vf_to_pf_cmd, else it will parse fail.
>
> Fixes: 109e4dd1bd7a ("net/hns3: get link state change through mailbox")
> Cc: stable@dpdk.org
>
> Signed-off-by: Chengwen Feng <fengchengwen@huawei.com>
> Signed-off-by: Min Hu (Connor) <humin29@huawei.com>
> ---
> v3:
> * get the parameter as 'struct hns3_mbx_vf_to_pf_cmd' at first place.
>
> v2:
> * kept original API interface.
> ---
> drivers/net/hns3/hns3_mbx.c | 11 +++++++++--
> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/hns3/hns3_mbx.c b/drivers/net/hns3/hns3_mbx.c
> index ba04ac9..31ab130 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/hns3/hns3_mbx.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/hns3/hns3_mbx.c
> @@ -347,7 +347,7 @@ hns3_link_fail_parse(struct hns3_hw *hw, uint8_t link_fail_code)
>
> static void
> hns3pf_handle_link_change_event(struct hns3_hw *hw,
> - struct hns3_mbx_pf_to_vf_cmd *req)
> + struct hns3_mbx_vf_to_pf_cmd *req)
> {
> #define LINK_STATUS_OFFSET 1
> #define LINK_FAIL_CODE_OFFSET 2
> @@ -513,7 +513,14 @@ hns3_dev_handle_mbx_msg(struct hns3_hw *hw)
> hns3_handle_asserting_reset(hw, req);
> break;
> case HNS3_MBX_PUSH_LINK_STATUS:
> - hns3pf_handle_link_change_event(hw, req);
> + /*
> + * This message is reported by the firmware and is
> + * reported in 'struct hns3_mbx_vf_to_pf_cmd' format.
> + * Therefore, we should cast the req variable to
> + * 'struct hns3_mbx_vf_to_pf_cmd' and then process it.
> + */
I am asking just to double check, the 'msg' type is different of
'hns3_mbx_pf_to_vf_cmd' & 'hns3_mbx_vf_to_pf_cmd', one is 'uint8_t', other is
'uint16_t', and 'msg' is used in the function 'hns3pf_handle_link_change_event()'.
Is the 'msg' usage still correct after this change?
> + hns3pf_handle_link_change_event(hw,
> + (struct hns3_mbx_vf_to_pf_cmd *)req);
Will it be more readable if 'desc->data' cast to "struct hns3_mbx_vf_to_pf_cmd
*" (instead of 'req')? Up to you, I can proceed with this one if you prefer.
在 2021/4/27 20:45, Ferruh Yigit 写道:
> On 4/27/2021 1:17 PM, Min Hu (Connor) wrote:
>> From: Chengwen Feng <fengchengwen@huawei.com>
>>
>> The link fails code should be parsed using the structure
>> hns3_mbx_vf_to_pf_cmd, else it will parse fail.
>>
>> Fixes: 109e4dd1bd7a ("net/hns3: get link state change through mailbox")
>> Cc: stable@dpdk.org
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Chengwen Feng <fengchengwen@huawei.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Min Hu (Connor) <humin29@huawei.com>
>> ---
>> v3:
>> * get the parameter as 'struct hns3_mbx_vf_to_pf_cmd' at first place.
>>
>> v2:
>> * kept original API interface.
>> ---
>> drivers/net/hns3/hns3_mbx.c | 11 +++++++++--
>> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/hns3/hns3_mbx.c b/drivers/net/hns3/hns3_mbx.c
>> index ba04ac9..31ab130 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/hns3/hns3_mbx.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/hns3/hns3_mbx.c
>> @@ -347,7 +347,7 @@ hns3_link_fail_parse(struct hns3_hw *hw, uint8_t link_fail_code)
>>
>> static void
>> hns3pf_handle_link_change_event(struct hns3_hw *hw,
>> - struct hns3_mbx_pf_to_vf_cmd *req)
>> + struct hns3_mbx_vf_to_pf_cmd *req)
>> {
>> #define LINK_STATUS_OFFSET 1
>> #define LINK_FAIL_CODE_OFFSET 2
>> @@ -513,7 +513,14 @@ hns3_dev_handle_mbx_msg(struct hns3_hw *hw)
>> hns3_handle_asserting_reset(hw, req);
>> break;
>> case HNS3_MBX_PUSH_LINK_STATUS:
>> - hns3pf_handle_link_change_event(hw, req);
>> + /*
>> + * This message is reported by the firmware and is
>> + * reported in 'struct hns3_mbx_vf_to_pf_cmd' format.
>> + * Therefore, we should cast the req variable to
>> + * 'struct hns3_mbx_vf_to_pf_cmd' and then process it.
>> + */
>
> I am asking just to double check, the 'msg' type is different of
> 'hns3_mbx_pf_to_vf_cmd' & 'hns3_mbx_vf_to_pf_cmd', one is 'uint8_t', other is
> 'uint16_t', and 'msg' is used in the function 'hns3pf_handle_link_change_event()'.
> Is the 'msg' usage still correct after this change?
>
Hi, it is correct.
Currently, msg from PF or VF are all handled in the same
handler(hns3_dev_handle_mbx_msg), we do different handling
according to different msg.
In futrue, we will separate handler from PF and VF.
>> + hns3pf_handle_link_change_event(hw,
>> + (struct hns3_mbx_vf_to_pf_cmd *)req);
>
> Will it be more readable if 'desc->data' cast to "struct hns3_mbx_vf_to_pf_cmd
> *" (instead of 'req')? Up to you, I can proceed with this one if you prefer.
> .
OK, thanks Ferruh.
>
On 4/27/2021 2:03 PM, Min Hu (Connor) wrote:
>
>
> 在 2021/4/27 20:45, Ferruh Yigit 写道:
>> On 4/27/2021 1:17 PM, Min Hu (Connor) wrote:
>>> From: Chengwen Feng <fengchengwen@huawei.com>
>>>
>>> The link fails code should be parsed using the structure
>>> hns3_mbx_vf_to_pf_cmd, else it will parse fail.
>>>
>>> Fixes: 109e4dd1bd7a ("net/hns3: get link state change through mailbox")
>>> Cc: stable@dpdk.org
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Chengwen Feng <fengchengwen@huawei.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Min Hu (Connor) <humin29@huawei.com>
>>> ---
>>> v3:
>>> * get the parameter as 'struct hns3_mbx_vf_to_pf_cmd' at first place.
>>>
>>> v2:
>>> * kept original API interface.
>>> ---
>>> drivers/net/hns3/hns3_mbx.c | 11 +++++++++--
>>> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/hns3/hns3_mbx.c b/drivers/net/hns3/hns3_mbx.c
>>> index ba04ac9..31ab130 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/net/hns3/hns3_mbx.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/net/hns3/hns3_mbx.c
>>> @@ -347,7 +347,7 @@ hns3_link_fail_parse(struct hns3_hw *hw, uint8_t
>>> link_fail_code)
>>> static void
>>> hns3pf_handle_link_change_event(struct hns3_hw *hw,
>>> - struct hns3_mbx_pf_to_vf_cmd *req)
>>> + struct hns3_mbx_vf_to_pf_cmd *req)
>>> {
>>> #define LINK_STATUS_OFFSET 1
>>> #define LINK_FAIL_CODE_OFFSET 2
>>> @@ -513,7 +513,14 @@ hns3_dev_handle_mbx_msg(struct hns3_hw *hw)
>>> hns3_handle_asserting_reset(hw, req);
>>> break;
>>> case HNS3_MBX_PUSH_LINK_STATUS:
>>> - hns3pf_handle_link_change_event(hw, req);
>>> + /*
>>> + * This message is reported by the firmware and is
>>> + * reported in 'struct hns3_mbx_vf_to_pf_cmd' format.
>>> + * Therefore, we should cast the req variable to
>>> + * 'struct hns3_mbx_vf_to_pf_cmd' and then process it.
>>> + */
>>
>> I am asking just to double check, the 'msg' type is different of
>> 'hns3_mbx_pf_to_vf_cmd' & 'hns3_mbx_vf_to_pf_cmd', one is 'uint8_t', other is
>> 'uint16_t', and 'msg' is used in the function
>> 'hns3pf_handle_link_change_event()'.
>> Is the 'msg' usage still correct after this change?
>>
> Hi, it is correct.
> Currently, msg from PF or VF are all handled in the same
> handler(hns3_dev_handle_mbx_msg), we do different handling
> according to different msg.
> In futrue, we will separate handler from PF and VF.
>
Let me clarify what I mean, 'msg' is accessed with an index like
"req->msg[LINK_FAIL_CODE_OFFSET]", and the 'req->msg' type is different as you
change the 'req' type. It changes 'uint8_t' -> 'uint16_t', which makes
"req->msg[LINK_FAIL_CODE_OFFSET]" point completely different location, can you
please confirm this is expected/correct?
>>> + hns3pf_handle_link_change_event(hw,
>>> + (struct hns3_mbx_vf_to_pf_cmd *)req);
>>
>> Will it be more readable if 'desc->data' cast to "struct hns3_mbx_vf_to_pf_cmd
>> *" (instead of 'req')? Up to you, I can proceed with this one if you prefer.
>> .
> OK, thanks Ferruh.
So do you prefer to continue as it is, or will there be a change?
在 2021/4/27 21:19, Ferruh Yigit 写道:
> On 4/27/2021 2:03 PM, Min Hu (Connor) wrote:
>>
>>
>> 在 2021/4/27 20:45, Ferruh Yigit 写道:
>>> On 4/27/2021 1:17 PM, Min Hu (Connor) wrote:
>>>> From: Chengwen Feng <fengchengwen@huawei.com>
>>>>
>>>> The link fails code should be parsed using the structure
>>>> hns3_mbx_vf_to_pf_cmd, else it will parse fail.
>>>>
>>>> Fixes: 109e4dd1bd7a ("net/hns3: get link state change through mailbox")
>>>> Cc: stable@dpdk.org
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Chengwen Feng <fengchengwen@huawei.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Min Hu (Connor) <humin29@huawei.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> v3:
>>>> * get the parameter as 'struct hns3_mbx_vf_to_pf_cmd' at first place.
>>>>
>>>> v2:
>>>> * kept original API interface.
>>>> ---
>>>> drivers/net/hns3/hns3_mbx.c | 11 +++++++++--
>>>> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/hns3/hns3_mbx.c b/drivers/net/hns3/hns3_mbx.c
>>>> index ba04ac9..31ab130 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/net/hns3/hns3_mbx.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/net/hns3/hns3_mbx.c
>>>> @@ -347,7 +347,7 @@ hns3_link_fail_parse(struct hns3_hw *hw, uint8_t
>>>> link_fail_code)
>>>> static void
>>>> hns3pf_handle_link_change_event(struct hns3_hw *hw,
>>>> - struct hns3_mbx_pf_to_vf_cmd *req)
>>>> + struct hns3_mbx_vf_to_pf_cmd *req)
>>>> {
>>>> #define LINK_STATUS_OFFSET 1
>>>> #define LINK_FAIL_CODE_OFFSET 2
>>>> @@ -513,7 +513,14 @@ hns3_dev_handle_mbx_msg(struct hns3_hw *hw)
>>>> hns3_handle_asserting_reset(hw, req);
>>>> break;
>>>> case HNS3_MBX_PUSH_LINK_STATUS:
>>>> - hns3pf_handle_link_change_event(hw, req);
>>>> + /*
>>>> + * This message is reported by the firmware and is
>>>> + * reported in 'struct hns3_mbx_vf_to_pf_cmd' format.
>>>> + * Therefore, we should cast the req variable to
>>>> + * 'struct hns3_mbx_vf_to_pf_cmd' and then process it.
>>>> + */
>>>
>>> I am asking just to double check, the 'msg' type is different of
>>> 'hns3_mbx_pf_to_vf_cmd' & 'hns3_mbx_vf_to_pf_cmd', one is 'uint8_t', other is
>>> 'uint16_t', and 'msg' is used in the function
>>> 'hns3pf_handle_link_change_event()'.
>>> Is the 'msg' usage still correct after this change?
>>>
>> Hi, it is correct.
>> Currently, msg from PF or VF are all handled in the same
>> handler(hns3_dev_handle_mbx_msg), we do different handling
>> according to different msg.
>> In futrue, we will separate handler from PF and VF.
>>
>
> Let me clarify what I mean, 'msg' is accessed with an index like
> "req->msg[LINK_FAIL_CODE_OFFSET]", and the 'req->msg' type is different as you
> change the 'req' type. It changes 'uint8_t' -> 'uint16_t', which makes
> "req->msg[LINK_FAIL_CODE_OFFSET]" point completely different location, can you
> please confirm this is expected/correct?
>
Hi, it is corect, we have tested it.
>
>>>> + hns3pf_handle_link_change_event(hw,
>>>> + (struct hns3_mbx_vf_to_pf_cmd *)req);
>>>
>>> Will it be more readable if 'desc->data' cast to "struct hns3_mbx_vf_to_pf_cmd
>>> *" (instead of 'req')? Up to you, I can proceed with this one if you prefer.
>>> .
>> OK, thanks Ferruh.
>
> So do you prefer to continue as it is, or will there be a change?
>
continue as it is, thanks.
> .
>
On 4/27/2021 2:43 PM, Min Hu (Connor) wrote:
>
>
> 在 2021/4/27 21:19, Ferruh Yigit 写道:
>> On 4/27/2021 2:03 PM, Min Hu (Connor) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> 在 2021/4/27 20:45, Ferruh Yigit 写道:
>>>> On 4/27/2021 1:17 PM, Min Hu (Connor) wrote:
>>>>> From: Chengwen Feng <fengchengwen@huawei.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> The link fails code should be parsed using the structure
>>>>> hns3_mbx_vf_to_pf_cmd, else it will parse fail.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fixes: 109e4dd1bd7a ("net/hns3: get link state change through mailbox")
>>>>> Cc: stable@dpdk.org
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Chengwen Feng <fengchengwen@huawei.com>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Min Hu (Connor) <humin29@huawei.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> v3:
>>>>> * get the parameter as 'struct hns3_mbx_vf_to_pf_cmd' at first place.
>>>>>
>>>>> v2:
>>>>> * kept original API interface.
>>>>> ---
>>>>> drivers/net/hns3/hns3_mbx.c | 11 +++++++++--
>>>>> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/hns3/hns3_mbx.c b/drivers/net/hns3/hns3_mbx.c
>>>>> index ba04ac9..31ab130 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/net/hns3/hns3_mbx.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/net/hns3/hns3_mbx.c
>>>>> @@ -347,7 +347,7 @@ hns3_link_fail_parse(struct hns3_hw *hw, uint8_t
>>>>> link_fail_code)
>>>>> static void
>>>>> hns3pf_handle_link_change_event(struct hns3_hw *hw,
>>>>> - struct hns3_mbx_pf_to_vf_cmd *req)
>>>>> + struct hns3_mbx_vf_to_pf_cmd *req)
>>>>> {
>>>>> #define LINK_STATUS_OFFSET 1
>>>>> #define LINK_FAIL_CODE_OFFSET 2
>>>>> @@ -513,7 +513,14 @@ hns3_dev_handle_mbx_msg(struct hns3_hw *hw)
>>>>> hns3_handle_asserting_reset(hw, req);
>>>>> break;
>>>>> case HNS3_MBX_PUSH_LINK_STATUS:
>>>>> - hns3pf_handle_link_change_event(hw, req);
>>>>> + /*
>>>>> + * This message is reported by the firmware and is
>>>>> + * reported in 'struct hns3_mbx_vf_to_pf_cmd' format.
>>>>> + * Therefore, we should cast the req variable to
>>>>> + * 'struct hns3_mbx_vf_to_pf_cmd' and then process it.
>>>>> + */
>>>>
>>>> I am asking just to double check, the 'msg' type is different of
>>>> 'hns3_mbx_pf_to_vf_cmd' & 'hns3_mbx_vf_to_pf_cmd', one is 'uint8_t', other is
>>>> 'uint16_t', and 'msg' is used in the function
>>>> 'hns3pf_handle_link_change_event()'.
>>>> Is the 'msg' usage still correct after this change?
>>>>
>>> Hi, it is correct.
>>> Currently, msg from PF or VF are all handled in the same
>>> handler(hns3_dev_handle_mbx_msg), we do different handling
>>> according to different msg.
>>> In futrue, we will separate handler from PF and VF.
>>>
>>
>> Let me clarify what I mean, 'msg' is accessed with an index like
>> "req->msg[LINK_FAIL_CODE_OFFSET]", and the 'req->msg' type is different as you
>> change the 'req' type. It changes 'uint8_t' -> 'uint16_t', which makes
>> "req->msg[LINK_FAIL_CODE_OFFSET]" point completely different location, can you
>> please confirm this is expected/correct?
>>
> Hi, it is corect, we have tested it.
Applied to dpdk-next-net/main, thanks.
@@ -347,7 +347,7 @@ hns3_link_fail_parse(struct hns3_hw *hw, uint8_t link_fail_code)
static void
hns3pf_handle_link_change_event(struct hns3_hw *hw,
- struct hns3_mbx_pf_to_vf_cmd *req)
+ struct hns3_mbx_vf_to_pf_cmd *req)
{
#define LINK_STATUS_OFFSET 1
#define LINK_FAIL_CODE_OFFSET 2
@@ -513,7 +513,14 @@ hns3_dev_handle_mbx_msg(struct hns3_hw *hw)
hns3_handle_asserting_reset(hw, req);
break;
case HNS3_MBX_PUSH_LINK_STATUS:
- hns3pf_handle_link_change_event(hw, req);
+ /*
+ * This message is reported by the firmware and is
+ * reported in 'struct hns3_mbx_vf_to_pf_cmd' format.
+ * Therefore, we should cast the req variable to
+ * 'struct hns3_mbx_vf_to_pf_cmd' and then process it.
+ */
+ hns3pf_handle_link_change_event(hw,
+ (struct hns3_mbx_vf_to_pf_cmd *)req);
break;
case HNS3_MBX_PUSH_VLAN_INFO:
/*