Re: Potential regression/bug in net/mlx5 driver

[Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@nvidia.com>]

On 14 Apr 17:34, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>On Fri, 14 Apr 2023 15:20:01 -0700 Saeed Mahameed wrote:
>> >> Officially we test only 3 GA FWs back. The fact that mlx5 is a generic CX
>> >> driver makes it really hard to test all the possible combinations, so we
>> >> need to be strict with how back we want to officially support and test old
>> >> generations.
>> >
>> >Would you be able to pull the datapoints for what 3 GA FWs means
>> >in case of CX4? Release number and date when it was released?
>>
>> https://network.nvidia.com/files/related-docs/eol/LCR-000821.pdf
>>
>> Since CX4 was EOL last year, it is going to be hard to find this info but
>> let me check my email archive..
>>
>> 12.28.2006   27-Sep-20 - recommended version
>> 12.26.xxxx   12-Dec-2019
>> 12.24.1000   2-Dec-18
>
>That's basically 3 years of support. Seems fairly reasonable.
>
>> >> Upgrade FW when possible, it is always easier than upgrading the kernel.
>> >> Anyways this was a very rare FW/Arch bug, We should've exposed an
>> >> explicit cap for this new type of PF when we had the chance, now it's too
>> >> late since a proper fix will require FW and Driver upgrades and breaking
>> >> the current solution we have over other OSes as well.
>> >>
>> >> Yes I can craft an if condition to explicitly check for chip id and FW
>> >> version for this corner case, which has no precedence in mlx5, but I prefer
>> >> to ask to upgrade FW first, and if that's an acceptable solution, I would
>> >> like to keep the mlx5 clean and device agnostic as much as possible.
>> >
>> >IMO you either need a fully fleshed out FW update story, with advanced
>> >warnings for a few releases, distributing the FW via linux-firmware or
>> >fwupdmgr or such.  Or deal with the corner cases in the driver :(
>>
>> Completely agree, I will start an internal discussion ..
>>
>> >We can get Paul to update, sure, but if he noticed so quickly the
>> >question remains how many people out in the wild will get affected
>> >and not know what the cause is?
>>
>> Right, I will make sure this will be addressed, will let you know how we
>> will handle this, will try to post a patch early next cycle, but i will
>> need to work with Arch and release managers for this, so it will take a
>> couple of weeks to formalize a proper solution.
>
>What do we do now, tho? If the main side effect of a revert is that
>users of a newfangled device with an order of magnitude lower
>deployment continue to see a warning/error in the logs - I'm leaning
>towards applying it :(

I tend to agree with you but let me check with the FW architect what he has
to offer, either we provide a FW version check or another more accurate
FW cap test that could solve the issue for everyone. If I don't come up with
a solution by next Wednesday I will repost your revert in my next net PR
on Wednesday. You can mark it awaiting-upstream for now, if that works for
you.