On 12/20/2023 1:23 AM, Larysa Zaremba wrote:
On Tue, Dec 19, 2023 at 04:09:09PM -0800, Nelson, Shannon wrote:
On 12/18/2023 11:27 AM, Tony Nguyen wrote:
Caution: This message originated from an External Source. Use proper caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding.
From: Larysa Zaremba <larysa.zaremba@xxxxxxxxx>
Commit 6624e780a577fc596788 ("ice: split ice_vsi_setup into smaller
functions") has refactored a bunch of code involved in PFR. In this
process, TC queue number adjustment for XDP was lost. Bring it back.
Lack of such adjustment causes interface to go into no-carrier after a
reset, if XDP program is attached, with the following message:
ice 0000:b1:00.0: Failed to set LAN Tx queue context, error: -22
ice 0000:b1:00.0 ens801f0np0: Failed to open VSI 0x0006 on switch 0x0001
ice 0000:b1:00.0: enable VSI failed, err -22, VSI index 0, type ICE_VSI_PF
ice 0000:b1:00.0: PF VSI rebuild failed: -22
ice 0000:b1:00.0: Rebuild failed, unload and reload driver
Fixes: 6624e780a577 ("ice: split ice_vsi_setup into smaller functions")
Reviewed-by: Przemek Kitszel <przemyslaw.kitszel@xxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Larysa Zaremba <larysa.zaremba@xxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Simon Horman <horms@xxxxxxxxxx>
Tested-by: Chandan Kumar Rout <chandanx.rout@xxxxxxxxx> (A Contingent Worker at Intel)
Signed-off-by: Tony Nguyen <anthony.l.nguyen@xxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_lib.c | 3 +++
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_lib.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_lib.c
index de7ba87af45d..1bad6e17f9be 100644
--- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_lib.c
+++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_lib.c
@@ -2371,6 +2371,9 @@ static int ice_vsi_cfg_tc_lan(struct ice_pf *pf, struct ice_vsi *vsi)
} else {
max_txqs[i] = vsi->alloc_txq;
}
+
+ if (vsi->type == ICE_VSI_PF)
+ max_txqs[i] += vsi->num_xdp_txq;
Since this new code is coming right after an existing
if (vsi->type == ICE_VSI_CHNL)
it looks like it would make sense to make it an 'else if' in that last
block, e.g.:
if (vsi->type == ICE_VSI_CHNL) {
if (!vsi->alloc_txq && vsi->num_txq)
max_txqs[i] = vsi->num_txq;
else
max_txqs[i] = pf->num_lan_tx;
} else if (vsi->type == ICE_VSI_PF) {
max_txqs[i] += vsi->num_xdp_txq;
Would need to be
max_txqs[i] = vsi->alloc_txq + vsi->num_xdp_txq;
} else {
max_txqs[i] = vsi->alloc_txq;
}
Of course this begins to verge on the switch/case/default format.
sln
I was going for logic: assign default values first, adjust based on enabled
features (well, a single feature) second. The thing that in my opinion would
make it more clear would be replacing 'vsi->type == ICE_VSI_PF' with
ice_is_xdp_ena_vsi(). Do you think this is worth doing?
Hmm... I made a dumb error in a quick read of the code. This suggests
that making the intent of the code more clear would be a good idea. I
think that the ice_is_xdp_ena_vsi() would definitely make it more clear
as opposed to the bare ICE_VCSI_PF.
sln
}
dev_dbg(dev, "vsi->tc_cfg.ena_tc = %d\n", vsi->tc_cfg.ena_tc);
--
2.41.0
