+cc: sta...@dpdk.org Per discussions here, cc'ing stable for fix to be applied to LTS as i40evf is being removed from next.
On Thu, Sep 2, 2021 at 8:37 AM Xueming(Steven) Li <xuemi...@nvidia.com> wrote: > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@intel.com> > > Sent: Monday, August 30, 2021 5:43 PM > > To: Xueming(Steven) Li <xuemi...@nvidia.com>; Kevin Traynor > > <ktray...@redhat.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> > > 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 > > > > 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. > > Both options will work, the first is more easy and common I guess, both 19.11 > LTS and 20.11 LTS maintainer can find it. > > > > > 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"); > > >>>> > > >>> > > > >
