From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal: i=1; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc20261015; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; t=1793812432; b=qupYV9dcTx6gh8T4KceQwGbmq+3XzkoviXkUMygAgfI7w/TnklgTkuvsnpB7IZuEAgnG PvCpRAZniFGygHk52yfpQHF+3cQe6Hr4/WBYi9cgnhHYBQDHgrzLH5IgmsBMvQhXMqo69 lBI5K/RqqCZ1kOgi9wBCfgWZmr4KMdZRmVlY1nH1UcMbHCTH/GMcJA3X8raDzGPzuy8Es y8b/r3twetVvbSoFNzdWk2k8yyErQj9D67g5bMTDWrtdF00E5EUyPZtO3YVf2yMITdd8b irjeMES9maJuG/wE8fCS1b+TZwBoq13k3yaHZIb/izVEHJyLhabnS1mSdd5HhzNhG9A== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc20261015; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1793812432; h=Received:DKIM-Signature:Message-ID:From:Subject:Reply-To:To:Cc: In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Date; bh=w41RWmta+nC17ij7ogpDOrMMKRLEDscz1xet2H3UYdI=; b=pH8xqmCzDK+DUY32A6093TCw90/xQqYzP6xbv0i9FnaMHS/TyLRNszOWQMxMQwL8YtRr bl1s+8s5CrQ6iMDXDTjjN9zZ2REBqQeW4PRSbNbMuDyjkoPh89rr9OSybnkoYgY1EUzic Tb19qC3Ea5tKkX27+eSsEkRyb77TDuwRlPgB2h1cvfn3Ez7ITo1owVdm7pc+JnlXP54ck Sykxr8NWJ3q+0PjjToWRq6fDWuikAux5qjWotyHDWu9s5PA2IQrz+brcGcfhWltXoQfMk /od31dxWXNUNUtuyJHV6Buqd+elOr+dk0/7TDGtHP7hWT+AUV88cQVLyLiyQzKgR4jQ== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=k20260515 header.b=VqReGfXC; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=100.103.45.18 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (quasi.space.kernel.org [100.103.45.18]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (prime256v1)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 51AF4606A33E for ; Wed, 4 Nov 2026 17:13:52 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key, unprotected) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=k20260515 header.b=VqReGfXC Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 093BA1F00A1A; Wed, 4 Nov 2026 17:13:51 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1793812432; bh=w41RWmta+nC17ij7ogpDOrMMKRLEDscz1xet2H3UYdI=; h=From:Subject:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Date; b=VqReGfXCDkVUJz06D1O5r0dBUdscaQhVBFXagk2IW4tNczBaYWNW89cxVVwq2fyq5 eNFEPQk5N4ZSqJJJe6nMvBMpWEHDr0tGQ2j3Lhq2dd3kXxV+vZbbFTgIYcamPCjemQ qXsaDJZV9qdzwBBCfgOfK2A5XOblmxxoFPGHVwN4uVi5J9EZriyFRtZnB4eE634jyj Jj6mSJseV4BUSVckmGxGiz2fBqWrpX09UI2waNtSORrojjGI+L6jECc7MT0cHNXcrh aW5l/SPbVbTAMUyflyHpfZ07c4NF6aFaumLUlBafeG3zWMgBBmuc5Vsi3gXAOuc4/R soXtHHRY2tEqg== Message-ID: From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 14/15] net/mlx5e: Register eswitch-manager VF/SF self-port with switch-id Reply-To: sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev To: "Tariq Toukan" Cc: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20261103171009.563034-15-tariqt@nvidia.com> References: <20261103171009.563034-1-tariqt@nvidia.com> <20261103171009.563034-15-tariqt@nvidia.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2026 17:13:51 +0000 X-Mailing-List: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: List-Owner: Precedence: list Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(= s) to consider: - [Low] net/mlx5e: duplicated switch_id setup in mlx5e_devlink_port_registe= r() -- commit 54a79d65d3221b87550e0050ec06b1b9389a1a13 Author: Shay Drory net/mlx5e: Register eswitch-manager VF/SF self-port with switch-id This commit populates attrs.switch_id from the system image GUID when registering a non-PF eswitch manager's self-port so that its uplink netdev exposes a phys_switch_id matching its managed representors. > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en/devlink.c b/drive= rs/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en/devlink.c > index 8818f65d1fbc4..79adb1ecc4506 100644 > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en/devlink.c > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en/devlink.c > @@ -63,6 +63,11 @@ int mlx5e_devlink_port_register(struct mlx5e_dev *mlx5= e_dev, > dl_port_index =3D mlx5_esw_vport_to_devlink_port_index(mdev, > MLX5_VPORT_UPLINK); > } else { > + if (MLX5_ESWITCH_MANAGER(mdev)) { > + mlx5e_devlink_get_port_parent_id(mdev, &ppid); > + memcpy(attrs.switch_id.id, ppid.id, ppid.id_len); > + attrs.switch_id.id_len =3D ppid.id_len; > + } [Severity: Low] This isn't a bug, but in drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en/devlink= .c, mlx5e_devlink_port_register() already has the exact same MLX5_ESWITCH_MANAGER(mdev) block in the mlx5_core_is_pf(mdev) branch: if (mlx5_core_is_pf(mdev)) { attrs.flavour =3D DEVLINK_PORT_FLAVOUR_PHYSICAL; attrs.phys.port_number =3D mlx5_get_dev_index(mdev); if (MLX5_ESWITCH_MANAGER(mdev)) { mlx5e_devlink_get_port_parent_id(mdev, &ppid); memcpy(attrs.switch_id.id, ppid.id, ppid.id_len); attrs.switch_id.id_len =3D ppid.id_len; } dl_port_index =3D mlx5_esw_vport_to_devlink_port_index(mdev, MLX5_VPORT_UPLINK); } Since attrs.switch_id is independent of the flavour-specific union in struct devlink_port_attrs, could the MLX5_ESWITCH_MANAGER(mdev) check be moved outside the if/else statement to avoid duplicating it in both branches? --=20 Sashiko AI review =C2=B7 https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20261103171009.5630= 34-1-tariqt@nvidia.com?part=3D14