From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 299FE290F for ; Sun, 16 Feb 2025 09:37:02 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1739698623; cv=none; b=faLutJ/T/V4XobAfOoMUUUzcUqBXkAwOyO0ag5gNQrxPR2ixXK5ljNj4fX8pSOXFMNWriSJEaz1i6ZokYoss92VragqSnmaBxbNh4J11m3He2qRLpjwYq163DjMA7XTDaWWbUc9vqj3KK+qei0Woi1LlGmRxvdJyKYOWC7S7dR4= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1739698623; c=relaxed/simple; bh=C/a2Xo494AXYieH5GYzXOn+umJoH8gBVl476a06NTa0=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=t/mX5cejHg6rcVSwKlqaoeE4bn/oKg1TCHFFtRzGaR4UAVq2UHqddgq6IPjpdWirKkqqNJ/3cU5euAw3JFGtk+rkPDsYlVK/RkG4wdfjfPbY9WdEqUtOMU2T20oeueVXhma1io5BwedVE3W70bjS8IXAw20COLt+zYx0/jQVT6s= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=hZhvk2Bv; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="hZhvk2Bv" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 770FFC4CEDD; Sun, 16 Feb 2025 09:37:00 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1739698622; bh=C/a2Xo494AXYieH5GYzXOn+umJoH8gBVl476a06NTa0=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=hZhvk2BvlFtXYj3YtY/j/8N0dUwRemZ4ixTYQjLWsndKbEdXxnC8Mat1zfeXyT3XT Dpmw0a0/5FbtXvgB5hboiAmAhnUMbXGXTX8O5HqMacuQG97g9UtF69D4T64VySNi49 5or5BlMxkOWZ+rt/SdVufb283tIP6M54vW6pmao8LW+sTYkzO5UUBaSxKdybQQ4ZPl DItzH/LsDYLbk9vO48q7zfKi6kzIN3b9wsR8SkbBW6mGlMpCIegIZcv9kDD7ffQwjD jpJgCGYdFw4z4j7tB1/t4QDQnyRpPouTZmi7X/8E3nqNFIl+iMAg78OmffEzGyJWdi tMwosZUG3ldVQ== Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2025 09:36:58 +0000 From: Simon Horman To: "Tantilov, Emil S" Cc: intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, decot@google.com, willemb@google.com, anthony.l.nguyen@intel.com, davem@davemloft.net, edumazet@google.com, kuba@kernel.org, pabeni@redhat.com, madhu.chittim@intel.com Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH iwl-net] idpf: check error for register_netdev() on init Message-ID: <20250216093658.GB1615191@kernel.org> References: <20250211023851.21090-1-emil.s.tantilov@intel.com> <20250212182111.GH1615191@kernel.org> <00ecb5e5-00b9-4c30-a29a-37c9f268b389@intel.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <00ecb5e5-00b9-4c30-a29a-37c9f268b389@intel.com> On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 12:39:03PM -0800, Tantilov, Emil S wrote: > On 2/12/2025 10:21 AM, Simon Horman wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 06:38:51PM -0800, Emil Tantilov wrote: > > > Current init logic ignores the error code from register_netdev(), > > > which will cause WARN_ON() on attempt to unregister it, if there was one, > > > and there is no info for the user that the creation of the netdev failed. > > > > > > WARNING: CPU: 89 PID: 6902 at net/core/dev.c:11512 unregister_netdevice_many_notify+0x211/0x1a10 > > > ... > > > [ 3707.563641] unregister_netdev+0x1c/0x30 > > > [ 3707.563656] idpf_vport_dealloc+0x5cf/0xce0 [idpf] > > > [ 3707.563684] idpf_deinit_task+0xef/0x160 [idpf] > > > [ 3707.563712] idpf_vc_core_deinit+0x84/0x320 [idpf] > > > [ 3707.563739] idpf_remove+0xbf/0x780 [idpf] > > > [ 3707.563769] pci_device_remove+0xab/0x1e0 > > > [ 3707.563786] device_release_driver_internal+0x371/0x530 > > > [ 3707.563803] driver_detach+0xbf/0x180 > > > [ 3707.563816] bus_remove_driver+0x11b/0x2a0 > > > [ 3707.563829] pci_unregister_driver+0x2a/0x250 > > > > > > Introduce an error check and log the vport number and error code. > > > On removal make sure to check VPORT_REG_NETDEV flag prior to calling > > > unregister and free on the netdev. > > > > > > Add local variables for idx, vport_config and netdev for readability. > > > > > > Fixes: 0fe45467a104 ("idpf: add create vport and netdev configuration") > > > Reviewed-by: Madhu Chittim > > > Suggested-by: Tony Nguyen > > > Signed-off-by: Emil Tantilov > > > --- > > > drivers/net/ethernet/intel/idpf/idpf_lib.c | 27 ++++++++++++++-------- > > > 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/idpf/idpf_lib.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/idpf/idpf_lib.c > > > > ... > > > > > @@ -1536,12 +1540,17 @@ void idpf_init_task(struct work_struct *work) > > > } > > > for (index = 0; index < adapter->max_vports; index++) { > > > - if (adapter->netdevs[index] && > > > - !test_bit(IDPF_VPORT_REG_NETDEV, > > > - adapter->vport_config[index]->flags)) { > > > - register_netdev(adapter->netdevs[index]); > > > - set_bit(IDPF_VPORT_REG_NETDEV, > > > - adapter->vport_config[index]->flags); > > > + struct idpf_vport_config *vport_config = adapter->vport_config[index]; > > > + struct net_device *netdev = adapter->netdevs[index]; > > > + > > > + if (netdev && !test_bit(IDPF_VPORT_REG_NETDEV, vport_config->flags)) { > > > + err = register_netdev(netdev); > > > + if (err) { > > > + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "failed to register netdev for vport %d: %pe\n", > > > + index, ERR_PTR(err)); > > > + continue; > > > + } > > > + set_bit(IDPF_VPORT_REG_NETDEV, vport_config->flags); > > > } > > > } > > > > Hi Emil, > > > > I'm wondering if we could reduce indentation and lines longer > > than 80 characters in the above like this (completely untested!): > I was mostly trying to focus on the fix itself, since this patch is -net > bound. The >80 line came about from the introduction of the local netdev and > it seemed cleaner to keep it in one line. I can just split the check as in > the original code. > > > > > > > for (index = 0; index < adapter->max_vports; index++) { > > struct idpf_vport_config *vport_config = adapter->vport_config[index]; > > struct net_device *netdev = adapter->netdevs[index]; > > > > if (!netdev || > > test_bit(IDPF_VPORT_REG_NETDEV, vport_config->flags)) > > continue; > Again, because its mainly to add the error checking I am not sure if its OK > to re-shuffle the logic. > > > > > err = register_netdev(netdev); > > if (err) { > > dev_err(&pdev->dev, "failed to register netdev for vport %d: %pe\n", > > index, ERR_PTR(err)); > > continue; > > } > > set_bit(IDPF_VPORT_REG_NETDEV, vport_config->flags); > > } > > Don't mind re-spinning (and testing) v2 with the proposed change, if it's > not infringing on the guidelines for submission to -net. Thanks, I see your point about not wanting to change logic for a -net patch. My feeling is that the change is trivial enough to fit within -net boundaries. But if you think there is any risk of it regressing then feel free to go with your original version.