Re: [PATCH net-next RFC v4 10/15] net/mlx5: Add support for devlink reload action fw activate

Jiri Pirko
2020-09-16T00:27:26Z

Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 02:44:02PM CEST, moshe@nvidia.com wrote:
>
>On 9/14/2020 4:54 PM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 08:07:57AM CEST, moshe@mellanox.com wrote:
>>
>> [..]
>>
>> > +static void mlx5_fw_reset_complete_reload(struct mlx5_core_dev *dev)
>> > +{
>> > + struct mlx5_fw_reset *fw_reset = dev->priv.fw_reset;
>> > +
>> > + /* if this is the driver that initiated the fw reset, devlink completed the reload */
>> > + if (test_bit(MLX5_FW_RESET_FLAGS_PENDING_COMP, &fw_reset->reset_flags)) {
>> > + complete(&fw_reset->done);
>> > + } else {
>> > + mlx5_load_one(dev, false);
>> > + devlink_reload_implicit_actions_performed(priv_to_devlink(dev),
>> > + DEVLINK_RELOAD_ACTION_LIMIT_LEVEL_NONE,
>> > + BIT(DEVLINK_RELOAD_ACTION_DRIVER_REINIT) |
>> > + BIT(DEVLINK_RELOAD_ACTION_FW_ACTIVATE));
>> Hmm, who originated the reset? Devlink_reload of the same devlink
>> instance?
>
>
>Not the same devlink instance for sure. I defer it by the flag above
>MLX5_FW_RESET_FLAG_PENDING_COMP. If the flag set, I set complete to the
>reload_down() waiting for it.

Hmm, thinking about the stats, as
devlink_reload_implicit_actions_performed() is called only in case
another instance does the reload, shouldn't it be a separate set of
stats? I think that the user would like to distinguish local and remote
reload, don't you think?

>
>
>> [..]