On Thu, Sep 05, 2013 at 07:47:27AM -0000, Robert Love wrote: > fnic doesn't use any of the create/destroy/enable/disable interfaces > either from the (legacy) module paramaters or the (new) fcoe_sysfs > interfaces. When fcoe_sysfs was introduced fnic wasn't changed since > it wasn't using the interfaces. libfcoe incorrectly assumed that that > all of its users were using fcoe_sysfs and when adding and deleting > FCFs would assume the existance of a fcoe_ctlr_device. fnic was not > allocating this structure because it doesn't care about the standard > user interfaces (fnic starts on link only). If/When libfcoe tried to use > the fcoe_ctlr_device's lock for the first time a NULL pointer exception > would be triggered. > > Since fnic doesn't care about sysfs or user interfaces, the solution > is to drop libfcoe's assumption that all drivers are using fcoe_sysfs. > > This patch accomplishes this by changing some of the structure > relationships. > > We need a way to determine when a LLD is using fcoe_sysfs or not and > we can do that by checking for the existance of the fcoe_ctlr_device. > Prior to this patch, it was assumed that the fcoe_ctlr structure was > allocated with the fcoe_ctlr_device and immediately followed it in > memory. To reach the fcoe_ctlr_device we would simply go back in memory > from the fcoe_ctlr to get the fcoe_ctlr_device. > > Since fnic doesn't allocate the fcoe_ctlr_device, we cannot keep that > assumption. This patch adds a pointer from the fcoe_ctlr to the > fcoe_ctlr_device. For bnx2fc and fcoe we will continue to allocate the > two structures together, but then we'll set the ctlr->cdev pointer > to point at the fcoe_ctlr_device. fnic will not change and will continue > to allocate the fcoe_ctlr itself, and ctlr->cdev will remain NULL. > > When libfcoe adds fcoe_fcf's to the fcoe_ctlr it will check if ctlr->cdev > is set and only if so will it continue to interact with fcoe_sysfs. > > Cc: Hiral Patel <[email protected]> > Signed-off-by: Robert Love <[email protected]> > Acked-by: Neil Horman <[email protected]> > Rob, whats the state of this? I'm getting some questions about it, and I noticed that you proposed it, I acked it, but its been sitting in NEW state in patchwork since the start of september. Are you planning on integrating it still? If not, what was the alternate fix?
Best Neil _______________________________________________ fcoe-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.open-fcoe.org/mailman/listinfo/fcoe-devel
