Re: [PATCH iwl-next] ice: do not reset MDD counters on VF reset

[Tony Nguyen <anthony.l.nguyen@intel.com>]

On 3/27/2026 12:22 AM, Aleksandr Loktionov wrote:
> From: Mark Rustad <mark.d.rustad@intel.com>
> 
> Do not clear MDD event counters on VF reset, to be consistent with
> how VF statistics are not reset either. This allows accumulation of
> MDD events across resets so that persistent misbehavior can be
> tracked and reported more accurately.
> 
> Fixes: 12bb018c538c ("ice: Refactor VF reset")
> Signed-off-by: Mark Rustad <mark.d.rustad@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Aleksandr Loktionov <aleksandr.loktionov@intel.com>
> ---
> 
>   drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_vf_lib.c | 2 --
>   1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_vf_lib.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_vf_lib.c
> index 7d33f09..9bcc739 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_vf_lib.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_vf_lib.c
> @@ -227,8 +227,6 @@ static void ice_vf_clear_counters(struct ice_vf *vf)
>   
>   	vf->num_mac = 0;
>   	vf->num_mac_lldp = 0;
> -	memset(&vf->mdd_tx_events, 0, sizeof(vf->mdd_tx_events));
> -	memset(&vf->mdd_rx_events, 0, sizeof(vf->mdd_rx_events));
>   }
>   
>   /**

AI Review says:

There's a documentation issue in 
drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_main.c that should be addressed. The 
comment in ice_mdd_maybe_reset_vf() states:

 > /* VF MDD event counters will be cleared by reset, so print the event
 >  * prior to reset.
 >  */

This comment contradicts the new behavior introduced by this patch. 
Since the memset calls are removed, MDD event counters now persist 
across VF resets rather than being cleared. The comment should be 
updated to reflect that counters are accumulated across resets to track 
persistent misbehavior, which is the intent documented in the commit 
message.



Also, the threading on your sends seems to be off. If you are going to 
send them together, please make them part of a series. If you are 
treating them individually, please send them that way.

The target trees also seem off; some 'net' and some 'iwl-next' patches 
with Fixes: that sound to be bug fixes. I'm working through and sorting 
what's been sent, but please try to tag things properly on future sends.

Thanks,
Tony