diff mbox series

[v3] net/hns3: fix parse link fails code fail

Message ID 1619525859-4182-1-git-send-email-humin29@huawei.com (mailing list archive)
State Accepted, archived
Delegated to: Ferruh Yigit
Headers
Series [v3] net/hns3: fix parse link fails code fail |

Checks

Context Check Description
ci/checkpatch success coding style OK
ci/iol-intel-Functional success Functional Testing PASS
ci/iol-intel-Performance success Performance Testing PASS
ci/Intel-compilation success Compilation OK
ci/intel-Testing success Testing PASS
ci/iol-abi-testing success Testing PASS
ci/iol-testing success Testing PASS
ci/github-robot success github build: passed
ci/iol-mellanox-Performance success Performance Testing PASS

Commit Message

humin (Q) April 27, 2021, 12:17 p.m. UTC 
  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

Ferruh Yigit April 27, 2021, 12:45 p.m. UTC | #1 
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.
humin (Q) April 27, 2021, 1:03 p.m. UTC | #2 
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.
>
Ferruh Yigit April 27, 2021, 1:19 p.m. UTC | #3 
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?
humin (Q) April 27, 2021, 1:43 p.m. UTC | #4 
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.
> .
>
Ferruh Yigit April 27, 2021, 3:09 p.m. UTC | #5 
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.
diff mbox series

Patch

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.
+			 */
+			hns3pf_handle_link_change_event(hw,
+				(struct hns3_mbx_vf_to_pf_cmd *)req);
 			break;
 		case HNS3_MBX_PUSH_VLAN_INFO:
 			/*