[PATCH] igb: disable virtualization features on 82580

[PATCH] igb: disable virtualization features on 82580

[Corinna Vinschen]

Disable virtualization features on 82580 just as on i210/i211.
This avoids that virt functions are acidentally called on 82850.

Signed-off-by: Corinna Vinschen <vinschen@redhat.com>
---
 drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igb/igb_main.c | 5 +++--
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igb/igb_main.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igb/igb_main.c
index 1ab787ed254d..13ba9c74bd84 100644
--- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igb/igb_main.c
+++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igb/igb_main.c
@@ -3933,8 +3933,9 @@ static void igb_probe_vfs(struct igb_adapter *adapter)
 	struct pci_dev *pdev = adapter->pdev;
 	struct e1000_hw *hw = &adapter->hw;
 
-	/* Virtualization features not supported on i210 family. */
-	if ((hw->mac.type == e1000_i210) || (hw->mac.type == e1000_i211))
+	/* Virtualization features not supported on i210 and 82580 family. */
+	if ((hw->mac.type == e1000_i210) || (hw->mac.type == e1000_i211) ||
+	    (hw->mac.type == e1000_82580))
 		return;
 
 	/* Of the below we really only want the effect of getting
-- 
2.31.1

Re: [PATCH] igb: disable virtualization features on 82580

[Paolo Abeni]

On Thu, 2023-08-31 at 10:09 +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> Disable virtualization features on 82580 just as on i210/i211.
> This avoids that virt functions are acidentally called on 82850.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Corinna Vinschen <vinschen@redhat.com>

This looks like a fix to me?!? if so a suitable 'Fixes' tag should be
included.

Thanks!

Paolo

Re: [PATCH] igb: disable virtualization features on 82580

[Corinna Vinschen]

Hi Paolo,

On Aug 31 13:41, Paolo Abeni wrote:
> On Thu, 2023-08-31 at 10:09 +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > Disable virtualization features on 82580 just as on i210/i211.
> > This avoids that virt functions are acidentally called on 82850.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Corinna Vinschen <vinschen@redhat.com>
> 
> This looks like a fix to me?!? if so a suitable 'Fixes' tag should be
> included.

I tried, but failed to come up with one.  When 82580 was introduced, the
conditional in question didn't exist at all and the igb_probe_vfs
function looked pretty different.  When i210 was introduced, the
conditional was created the first time.  So I was a bit puzzled if this
fixes the patch introducing 82580, or if it fixes the introduction of
the conditional, or if it's just kind of "new functionality".

Your mail got me thinking again, and I'm going to send a v2, blaming the
patch introducing 52580. It failed to guard igb_probe_vfs correctly.
When i210 was introduced, a matching conditional should have already
existed.


Thanks,
Corinna