On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 2:42 AM, Saeed Mahameed <sae...@mellanox.com> wrote:
[...]
> 9 files changed, 376 insertions(+), 223 deletions(-)
a bit of heavy duty for this sort of sensitive change, should
investigate if it can be broken a bit
> +int mlx5_mpfs_init(struct mlx5_core_dev *dev)
> +{
> + int l2table_size = 1 << MLX5_CAP_GEN(dev, log_max_l2_table);
> + struct mlx5_mpfs *mpfs;
> +
> + if (!MLX5_VPORT_MANAGER(dev))
> + return 0;
In commit 955bc48081805c053 we added
+ static bool mlx5e_is_eswitch_vport_mngr(struct mlx5_core_dev *mdev)
+{
+ return (MLX5_CAP_GEN(mdev, vport_group_manager) &&
+ MLX5_CAP_GEN(mdev, port_type) == MLX5_CAP_PORT_TYPE_ETH);
+}
+
and now you add
+#define MLX5_VPORT_MANAGER(mdev) \
+ (MLX5_CAP_GEN(mdev, vport_group_manager) && mlx5_core_is_pf(mdev))
+
would be good to align things across the place with a pre-patch and
then use the whatever check
we need to apply
BTW mlx5e_is_eswitch_vport_mngr() should return false in the down
stream patch when eswitch is compiled out, right?
> +void mlx5_mpfs_cleanup(struct mlx5_core_dev *dev)
> +{
> + struct mlx5_mpfs *mpfs = dev->priv.mpfs;
> +
> + if (!MLX5_VPORT_MANAGER(dev))
> + return;
> +
> + WARN_ON(!hlist_empty(mpfs->hash));
I don't see any line with WARN_ON that was deleted by this patch, why add that?
> + kfree(mpfs->bitmap);
> + kfree(mpfs);
> +}
> +
> +int mlx5_mpfs_add_mac(struct mlx5_core_dev *dev, u8 *mac)
> +{
> + if (!MLX5_VPORT_MANAGER(dev))
> + return 0;
> +
> + if (is_multicast_ether_addr(mac))
> + return 0;
It would have been much better reviewed and maintained if we can code
things in a manner under which we don't get here if not appropriate and
not simulate successful return.
> +int mlx5_mpfs_del_mac(struct mlx5_core_dev *dev, u8 *mac)
> +{
> + if (!MLX5_VPORT_MANAGER(dev))
> + return 0;
> +
> + if (is_multicast_ether_addr(mac))
> + return 0;
same comment as for the add_mac call
