[Intel-wired-lan] [net-next 03/10] fm10k: don't store sw_vid at reset

[Keller, Jacob E <jacob.e.keller@intel.com>]

On Fri, 2015-06-19 at 21:03 -0700, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> On 06/19/2015 04:37 PM, Jacob Keller wrote:
> > If we store the sw_vid at reset of PF, then we accidentally prevent 
> > the
> > VF from receiving the message to update its default VID. This only
> > occurs if the VF is created before the PF has come up, which is the
> > standard way of creating VFs when using the module parameter.
> 
> The upstream driver doesn't have a module parameter for VFs.  It uses 
> 
> sysfs.  It isn't clear but can this issue occur if you use the sysfs?
> 

Yes, I can re-work the comment. It can happen if you instantiate VFs
before you bring up the PF such as:

modprobe fm10k
echo N > /sys/class/.../sriov_numvfs
ip link set DEVICE up

If you do that in this order VFs will have the issue.

> > This fixes an issue where we request the incorrect MAC/VLAN
> > combinations, and prevents us from accidentally reporting some 
> > frames as
> > vlan tagged.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@intel.com>
> > ---
> >   drivers/net/ethernet/intel/fm10k/fm10k_iov.c | 3 ---
> >   1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/fm10k/fm10k_iov.c 
> > b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/fm10k/fm10k_iov.c
> > index 94571e6e790c..0e25a80417b9 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/fm10k/fm10k_iov.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/fm10k/fm10k_iov.c
> > @@ -228,9 +228,6 @@ int fm10k_iov_resume(struct pci_dev *pdev)
> >   		hw->iov.ops.set_lport(hw, vf_info, i,
> >   				     
> >  FM10K_VF_FLAG_MULTI_CAPABLE);
> >   
> > -		/* assign our default vid to the VF following 
> > reset */
> > -		vf_info->sw_vid = hw->mac.default_vid;
> > -
> >   		/* mailbox is disconnected so we don't send a 
> > message */
> >   		hw->iov.ops.assign_default_mac_vlan(hw, vf_info);
> >   
> 
> The patch itself looks fine.  I assume the Switch API will send a 
> message to force us onto the correct VID if there is one already 
> reserved for this VF.
> 
> I probably shouldn't have used the PF VLAN ID for the VFs anyway. 
> Just 
> letting the Switch API bounce a message through is a much better way 
> to go.


Yes, the switch sends a message which we receive on coming up.

Regards,
Jake