From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner Subject: Re: Possible issue with Mellanox mlx4/port handling Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 09:26:22 -0300 Message-ID: <5040AD6E.5070205@redhat.com> References: <5040AD1F.9080702@redhat.com> Reply-To: mleitner@redhat.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: dledford@redhat.com To: netdev@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:62706 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751366Ab2HaM0Y (ORCPT ); Fri, 31 Aug 2012 08:26:24 -0400 Received: from int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q7VCQODl004547 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Fri, 31 Aug 2012 08:26:24 -0400 In-Reply-To: <5040AD1F.9080702@redhat.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Fixed subject, sorry the confusion. On 08/31/2012 09:25 AM, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner wrote: > Hi, > > Commit > http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git;a=commitdiff;h=4c41b3673759d096106e68bce586f103c51d4119 > inserted changes like: > > @@ -361,7 +361,7 @@ static int add_promisc_qp(struct mlx4_dev *dev, u8 > port, > int err; > struct mlx4_priv *priv = mlx4_priv(dev); > > - s_steer = &mlx4_priv(dev)->steer[0]; > + s_steer = &mlx4_priv(dev)->steer[port - 1]; > > mutex_lock(&priv->mcg_table.mutex); > > But I fear we missed one part of the deal. Concept patch: > > @@ -365,7 +365,7 @@ static int add_promisc_qp(struct mlx4_dev *dev, u8 > port, > > mutex_lock(&priv->mcg_table.mutex); > > - if (get_promisc_qp(dev, 0, steer, qpn)) { > + if (get_promisc_qp(dev, port - 1, steer, qpn)) { > err = 0; /* Noting to do, already exists */ > goto out_mutex; > } > > Because: > > static int add_promisc_qp(struct mlx4_dev *dev, u8 port, > enum mlx4_steer_type steer, u32 qpn) > { > ... > A) s_steer = &mlx4_priv(dev)->steer[port - 1]; > > mutex_lock(&priv->mcg_table.mutex); > > if (get_promisc_qp(dev, 0, steer, qpn)) { > err = 0; /* Noting to do, already exists */ > goto out_mutex; > } > ... > /* add the new qpn to list of promisc qps */ > C) list_add_tail(&pqp->list, &s_steer->promisc_qps[steer]); > ... > } > > static struct mlx4_promisc_qp *get_promisc_qp(struct mlx4_dev *dev, u8 > pf_num, > enum mlx4_steer_type steer, > u32 qpn) > { > B) struct mlx4_steer *s_steer = &mlx4_priv(dev)->steer[pf_num]; > struct mlx4_promisc_qp *pqp; > > list_for_each_entry(pqp, &s_steer->promisc_qps[steer], list) { > if (pqp->qpn == qpn) > return pqp; > } > /* not found */ > return NULL; > } > > As far as I can understand, we are changing a list for a port and > checking for duplicates on the other list. Points marked as A, B and C > for highlighting. Am I missing something? What do you think? > > FWIW, this call get_promisc_qp(dev, 0, ...) happens in other places too. > > Thank you, > Marcelo.