Re: [PATCH net-next] bnxt_en: Fix logic of forward the VF MAC address to PF in bnxt_vf_validate_set_mac
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 9:01 AM, Vasundhara Volam
wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 1:01 PM, Michael Chan
> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 10:24 PM, YueHaibing wrote:
>> > Based on the comments,req->l2addr must match the VF MAC address
>> > if firmware spec >= 1.2.2, mac_ok can be true.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: YueHaibing
>> > ---
>> > drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/bnxt/bnxt_sriov.c | 7 ++-
>> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/bnxt/bnxt_sriov.c
>> > b/drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/bnxt/bnxt_sriov.c
>> > index a649108..7925964 100644
>> > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/bnxt/bnxt_sriov.c
>> > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/bnxt/bnxt_sriov.c
>> > @@ -954,12 +954,9 @@ static int bnxt_vf_validate_set_mac(struct bnxt *bp,
>> > struct bnxt_vf_info *vf)
>> > if (ether_addr_equal((const u8 *)req->l2_addr,
>> > vf->mac_addr))
>> > mac_ok = true;
>> > } else if (is_valid_ether_addr(vf->vf_mac_addr)) {
>> > - if (ether_addr_equal((const u8 *)req->l2_addr,
>> > vf->vf_mac_addr))
>> > + if (ether_addr_equal((const u8 *)req->l2_addr,
>> > vf->vf_mac_addr) &&
>> > + bp->hwrm_spec_code >= 0x10202)
>> > mac_ok = true;
>>
>> I'm not sure if this is correct. If firmware spec < 0x10202, the VF
>> MAC address is not forwarded to the PF and so it doesn't have to match
>> and mac_ok should still be true. I think we are missing that
>> condition with this patch.
>>
>> I need to let my colleague Vasundhara comment on this. She is more
>> familiar with this logic.
> Yes Michael, you are right. Also, the plain else condition is to cover
> a special case to allow VF to modify
> it's own MAC when PF has not assigned a valid MAC address and HWRM
> spec code > 0x10202.
We should combine the "else if" and "else" below into a plain else and
add some comments to explain the conditions.
>>
>> > - } else if (bp->hwrm_spec_code < 0x10202) {
>> > - mac_ok = true;
>> > - } else {
>> > - mac_ok = true;
>> > }
>> > if (mac_ok)
>> > return bnxt_hwrm_exec_fwd_resp(bp, vf, msg_size);
>> > --
>> > 2.7.0
>> >
>> >
Re: [PATCH net-next] bnxt_en: Fix logic of forward the VF MAC address to PF in bnxt_vf_validate_set_mac
On 2018/7/25 5:48, Michael Chan wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 9:01 AM, Vasundhara Volam
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 1:01 PM, Michael Chan
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 10:24 PM, YueHaibing wrote:
Based on the comments,req->l2addr must match the VF MAC address
if firmware spec >= 1.2.2, mac_ok can be true.
Signed-off-by: YueHaibing
---
drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/bnxt/bnxt_sriov.c | 7 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/bnxt/bnxt_sriov.c
b/drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/bnxt/bnxt_sriov.c
index a649108..7925964 100644
--- a/drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/bnxt/bnxt_sriov.c
+++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/bnxt/bnxt_sriov.c
@@ -954,12 +954,9 @@ static int bnxt_vf_validate_set_mac(struct bnxt *bp,
struct bnxt_vf_info *vf)
if (ether_addr_equal((const u8 *)req->l2_addr,
vf->mac_addr))
mac_ok = true;
} else if (is_valid_ether_addr(vf->vf_mac_addr)) {
- if (ether_addr_equal((const u8 *)req->l2_addr,
vf->vf_mac_addr))
+ if (ether_addr_equal((const u8 *)req->l2_addr,
vf->vf_mac_addr) &&
+ bp->hwrm_spec_code >= 0x10202)
mac_ok = true;
>>>
>>> I'm not sure if this is correct. If firmware spec < 0x10202, the VF
>>> MAC address is not forwarded to the PF and so it doesn't have to match
>>> and mac_ok should still be true. I think we are missing that
>>> condition with this patch.
>>>
>>> I need to let my colleague Vasundhara comment on this. She is more
>>> familiar with this logic.
>> Yes Michael, you are right. Also, the plain else condition is to cover
>> a special case to allow VF to modify
>> it's own MAC when PF has not assigned a valid MAC address and HWRM
>> spec code > 0x10202.
>
> We should combine the "else if" and "else" below into a plain else and
> add some comments to explain the conditions.
Thank you for clarification.
I will send a new patch for this.
>
>>>
- } else if (bp->hwrm_spec_code < 0x10202) {
- mac_ok = true;
- } else {
- mac_ok = true;
}
if (mac_ok)
return bnxt_hwrm_exec_fwd_resp(bp, vf, msg_size);
--
2.7.0
>
> .
>
