On 7/29/21 7:20 AM, Xueming(Steven) Li wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: Andrew Rybchenko <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2021 12:18 AM To: Ajit Khaparde <[email protected]>; Somnath Kotur <[email protected]>; John Daley <[email protected]>; Hyong Youb Kim <[email protected]>; Beilei Xing <[email protected]>; Qiming Yang <[email protected]>; Qi Zhang <[email protected]>; Haiyue Wang <[email protected]>; Matan Azrad <[email protected]>; Shahaf Shuler <[email protected]>; Slava Ovsiienko <[email protected]>; NBU-Contact-Thomas Monjalon <[email protected]>; Ferruh Yigit <[email protected]>; Xueming(Steven) Li <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]; Viacheslav Galaktionov <[email protected]>; [email protected] Subject: [PATCH] ethdev: fix representor port ID search by name From: Viacheslav Galaktionov <[email protected]> Fix representor port ID search by name if the representor itself does not provide representors info. Getting a list of representors from a representor does not make sense. Instead, a parent device should be used. To this end, extend the rte_eth_dev_data structure to include the port ID of the parent device for representors. Fixes: df7547a6a2cc ("ethdev: add helper function to get representor ID") Cc: [email protected] Signed-off-by: Viacheslav Galaktionov <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Andrew Rybchenko <[email protected]> --- The new field is added into the hole in rte_eth_dev_data structure. The patch does not change ABI, but extra care is required since ABI check is disabled for the structure because of the libabigail bug [1]. Potentially it is bad for out-of-tree drivers which implement representors but do not fill in a new parert_port_id field in rte_eth_dev_data structure. Do we care? May be the patch should add lines to release notes, but I'd like to get initial feedback first. mlx5 changes should be reviwed by maintainers very carefully, since we are not sure if we patch it correctly. [1] https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28060
[snip]
b/drivers/net/mlx5/linux/mlx5_os.c index be22d9cbd2..5550d30628 100644 --- a/drivers/net/mlx5/linux/mlx5_os.c +++ b/drivers/net/mlx5/linux/mlx5_os.c @@ -1511,6 +1511,17 @@ mlx5_dev_spawn(struct rte_device *dpdk_dev, if (priv->representor) { eth_dev->data->dev_flags |= RTE_ETH_DEV_REPRESENTOR; eth_dev->data->representor_id = priv->representor_id; + MLX5_ETH_FOREACH_DEV(port_id, priv->pci_dev) { + const struct mlx5_priv *opriv = + rte_eth_devices[port_id].data->dev_private; + + if (!opriv || + opriv->sh != priv->sh || + opriv->representor) + continue; + eth_dev->data->parent_port_id = port_id; + break; + }At line 126, there is a logic that locate priv->domain_id, parent port_id could be found there.
Do you mean line 1260? The comment above says "Look for sibling devices in order to reuse their switch domain if any, otherwise allocate one.".
So, it is not a parent. Is the comment misleading and parent matches the search criteria as well? But in any case, we should guarantee that it is a parent port, not a sibling port. So, we need extra criteria to match parent port only.
