> From: longli@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <longli@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2022 7:07 PM
> +void mana_uncfg_vport(struct mana_port_context *apc)
> +{
> + mutex_lock(&apc->vport_mutex);
> + apc->vport_use_count--;
> + WARN_ON(apc->vport_use_count < 0);
> + mutex_unlock(&apc->vport_mutex);
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(mana_uncfg_vport);
> +
> +int mana_cfg_vport(struct mana_port_context *apc, u32 protection_dom_id,
> + u32 doorbell_pg_id)
> {
> struct mana_config_vport_resp resp = {};
> struct mana_config_vport_req req = {};
> int err;
>
> + /* Ethernet driver and IB driver can't take the port at the same time */
> + mutex_lock(&apc->vport_mutex);
> + if (apc->vport_use_count > 0) {
> + mutex_unlock(&apc->vport_mutex);
> + return -ENODEV;
Maybe -EBUSY is better?
> @@ -563,9 +581,19 @@ static int mana_cfg_vport(struct mana_port_context
> *apc, u32 protection_dom_id,
>
> apc->tx_shortform_allowed = resp.short_form_allowed;
> apc->tx_vp_offset = resp.tx_vport_offset;
> +
> + netdev_info(apc->ndev, "Configured vPort %llu PD %u DB %u\n",
> + apc->port_handle, protection_dom_id, doorbell_pg_id);
Should this be netdev_dbg()?
The log buffer can be flooded if there are many vPorts per VF PCI device and
there are a lot of VFs.
> out:
> + if (err) {
> + mutex_lock(&apc->vport_mutex);
> + apc->vport_use_count--;
> + mutex_unlock(&apc->vport_mutex);
> + }
Change this to the blelow?
if (err)
mana_uncfg_vport(apc);
> @@ -626,6 +654,9 @@ static int mana_cfg_vport_steering(struct
> mana_port_context *apc,
> resp.hdr.status);
> err = -EPROTO;
> }
> +
> + netdev_info(ndev, "Configured steering vPort %llu entries %u\n",
> + apc->port_handle, num_entries);
netdev_dbg()?
In general, the patch looks good to me.
Reviewed-by: Dexuan Cui <decui@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
