On 8/27/2021 7:28 AM, Xueming(Steven) Li wrote:
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Kevin Traynor <ktray...@redhat.com>
>> Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2021 6:46 PM
>> To: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@intel.com>; Ben Magistro
>> <konce...@gmail.com>; dev@dpdk.org; Beilei Xing <beilei.x...@intel.com>;
>> Luca Boccassi <bl...@debian.org>; Christian Ehrhardt
>> <christian.ehrha...@canonical.com>; Xueming(Steven) Li
>> <xuemi...@nvidia.com>
>> Cc: ben.magis...@trinitycyber.com; stefan.baran...@trinitycyber.com; Qi
>> Zhang <qi.z.zh...@intel.com>
>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] driver: i40evf device initialization
>>
>> + Christian and Xueming
>>
>> On 26/08/2021 11:25, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>>> On 8/25/2021 8:45 PM, Ben Magistro wrote:
>>>> The i40evf driver is not initializing the eth_dev attribute which can
>>>> result in a nullptr dereference. Changes were modeled after the
>>>> iavf_dev_init() per suggestion from the mailing list[1].
>>>>
>>>> [1] https://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2021-August/217251.html
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Ben Magistro <konce...@gmail.com>
>>>
>>> i40evf will be removed in this release. But I guess it helps for
>>> stable releases to first merge the fixes and later removed it, not sure.
>>>
>>> @Luca, @Kevin, do you prefer this patch directly to stable repos, or
>>> through the main repo?
>>
>> I'll leave to Luca/Xueming and Christian to say if they have a preference,
>> but I'd guess either way is fine from stable view once it has
>> fixes/stable tags or LTS patch prefix (it doesn't have any of these at
>> present).
>
> Yes, any option will make it being noticed by LTS maintainer:
> 1. patches accepted by main with "fix" in subject
> 2. patches accepted by main with "cc: sta...@dpdk.org" in commit message
> 3. patches backported to LTS, sent to stable maillist with LTS prefix, for
> example "[20.11]"
>
Thanks Xueming,
But is there a preferences for this case?
The i40evf will be removed from main repo, is it better
1- first apply the fix and remove the component from main (I assume fix still
will be bacported to LTS in this case)
or
2- remove the i40evf from main (without fix), apply the fix directly to the LTS.
Thanks,
ferruh
>>
>>> i40evf won't be tested in the main anyway, since it would be removed
>>> before -rc1 testing, so it looks like there won't be any difference from
>>> testing point of view.
>>>
>>>
>>>> ---
>>>> drivers/net/i40e/i40e_ethdev_vf.c | 8 ++++++--
>>>> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/i40e/i40e_ethdev_vf.c
>>>> b/drivers/net/i40e/i40e_ethdev_vf.c
>>>> index 0cfe13b7b2..ccdce9a16a 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/net/i40e/i40e_ethdev_vf.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/net/i40e/i40e_ethdev_vf.c
>>>> @@ -1564,8 +1564,9 @@ i40evf_dev_alarm_handler(void *param) static
>>>> int i40evf_dev_init(struct rte_eth_dev *eth_dev) {
>>>> - struct i40e_hw *hw
>>>> - = I40E_DEV_PRIVATE_TO_HW(eth_dev->data->dev_private);
>>>> + struct i40e_adapter *adapter =
>>>> + I40E_DEV_PRIVATE_TO_ADAPTER(eth_dev->data->dev_private);
>>>> + struct i40e_hw *hw = I40E_DEV_PRIVATE_TO_HW(adapter);
>>>> struct rte_pci_device *pci_dev = RTE_ETH_DEV_TO_PCI(eth_dev);
>>>>
>>>> PMD_INIT_FUNC_TRACE();
>>>> @@ -1596,11 +1597,14 @@ i40evf_dev_init(struct rte_eth_dev *eth_dev)
>>>> hw->device_id = pci_dev->id.device_id;
>>>> hw->subsystem_vendor_id = pci_dev->id.subsystem_vendor_id;
>>>> hw->subsystem_device_id = pci_dev->id.subsystem_device_id;
>>>> + hw->bus.bus_id = pci_dev->addr.bus;
>>>> hw->bus.device = pci_dev->addr.devid;
>>>> hw->bus.func = pci_dev->addr.function;
>>>> hw->hw_addr = (void *)pci_dev->mem_resource[0].addr;
>>>> hw->adapter_stopped = 1;
>>>> hw->adapter_closed = 0;
>>>> + hw->back = I40E_DEV_PRIVATE_TO_ADAPTER(eth_dev->data->dev_private);
>>>> + adapter->eth_dev = eth_dev;
>>>>
>>>> if(i40evf_init_vf(eth_dev) != 0) {
>>>> PMD_INIT_LOG(ERR, "Init vf failed");
>>>>
>>>
>
