> -----Original Message----- > From: Intel-wired-lan <[email protected]> On Behalf Of > Przemek Kitszel > Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2025 10:03 PM > To: Simon Horman <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected]; Nguyen, Anthony L > <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Greg KH > <[email protected]>; Kyle, Jeremiah <[email protected]>; > Pepiak, Leszek <[email protected]>; Czapnik, Lukasz > <[email protected]>; Loktionov, Aleksandr > <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH iwl-net 5/8] i40e: fix validation of VF > state in get resources > > On 8/26/25 18:33, Simon Horman wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 13, 2025 at 12:45:15PM +0200, Przemek Kitszel wrote: > >> From: Lukasz Czapnik <[email protected]> > >> > >> VF state I40E_VF_STATE_ACTIVE is not the only state in which VF is > >> actually active so it should not be used to determine if a VF is > >> allowed to obtain resources. > >> > >> Use I40E_VF_STATE_RESOURCES_LOADED that is set only in > >> i40e_vc_get_vf_resources_msg() and cleared during reset. > >> > >> Fixes: 61125b8be85d ("i40e: Fix failed opcode appearing if handling > >> messages from VF") > > my initial conclusion was that the above commit changed behavior so it > opened up a window for the second get-resources message... > > > > > I suspect this could be > > > > Fixes: 5c3c48ac6bf5 ("i40e: implement virtual device interface") > > ... while the original impl (your proposal to blame here), while buggy, would > error out more often > > > > > But I guess that either way is fine. > > that is also true, so I didn't spent too much time on this other reasoning is > "Fixes: tag should be used to point to a commit that needs patching", and > picking either one here would result in the very same outcome (the later patch > would be applied as a dependency of the current (5/8) fix) > > > > >> Cc: [email protected] > >> Signed-off-by: Lukasz Czapnik <[email protected]> > >> Reviewed-by: Aleksandr Loktionov <[email protected]> > >> Signed-off-by: Przemek Kitszel <[email protected]> > > > > Reviewed-by: Simon Horman <[email protected]> > > thank you again for reviewing this
Tested-by: Rafal Romanowski <[email protected]>
