On 06.04.2023 14:43, Simon Horman wrote:
On Thu, Apr 06, 2023 at 12:23:49PM +0300, Denis Plotnikov wrote:
On 06.04.2023 10:03, Simon Horman wrote:
On Wed, Apr 05, 2023 at 02:37:08PM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
On Wed, Apr 05, 2023 at 03:04:39PM +0200, Simon Horman wrote:
On Mon, Apr 03, 2023 at 01:58:49PM +0300, Denis Plotnikov wrote:
On 31.03.2023 20:52, Simon Horman wrote:
On Fri, Mar 31, 2023 at 11:06:05AM +0300, Denis Plotnikov wrote:
Static code analyzer complains to unchecked return value.
It seems that pci_reset_function return something meaningful
only if "reset_methods" is set.
Even if reset_methods isn't used check the return value to avoid
possible bugs leading to undefined behavior in the future.
Signed-off-by: Denis Plotnikov <den-plotnikov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
nit: The tree this patch is targeted at should be designated, probably
net-next, so the '[PATCH net-next]' in the subject.
---
drivers/net/ethernet/qlogic/qlcnic/qlcnic_ctx.c | 4 +++-
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/qlogic/qlcnic/qlcnic_ctx.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/qlogic/qlcnic/qlcnic_ctx.c
index 87f76bac2e463..39ecfc1a1dbd0 100644
--- a/drivers/net/ethernet/qlogic/qlcnic/qlcnic_ctx.c
+++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/qlogic/qlcnic/qlcnic_ctx.c
@@ -628,7 +628,9 @@ int qlcnic_fw_create_ctx(struct qlcnic_adapter *dev)
int i, err, ring;
if (dev->flags & QLCNIC_NEED_FLR) {
- pci_reset_function(dev->pdev);
+ err = pci_reset_function(dev->pdev);
+ if (err && err != -ENOTTY)
Are you sure about the -ENOTTY part?
It seems odd to me that an FLR would be required but reset is not supported.
No, I'm not sure. My logic is: if the reset method isn't set than
pci_reset_function() returns -ENOTTY so treat that result as ok.
pci_reset_function may return something different than -ENOTTY only if
pci_reset_fn_methods[m].reset_fn is set.
I see your reasoning: -ENOTTY means nothing happened, and probably that is ok.
I think my main question is if that can ever happen.
If that is unknown, then I think this conservative approach makes sense.
The commit log mentions "reset_methods", which I don't think is really
relevant here because reset_methods is an internal implementation
detail. The point is that pci_reset_function() returns 0 if it was
successful and a negative value if it failed.
If the driver thinks the device needs to be reset, ignoring any
negative return value seems like a mistake because the device was not
reset.
If the reset is required for a firmware update to take effect, maybe a
diagnostic would be helpful if it fails, e.g., the other "Adapter
initialization failed. Please reboot" messages.
"QLCNIC_NEED_FLR" suggests that the driver expects an FLR (as opposed
to other kinds of reset). If the driver knows that all qlcnic devices
support FLR, it could use pcie_flr() directly.
pci_reset_function() does have the possibility that the reset works on
some devices but not all. Secondary Bus Reset fails if there are
other functions on the same bus, e.g., a multi-function device. And
there's some value in doing the reset the same way in all cases.
So I would suggest something like:
if (dev->flags & QLCNIC_NEED_FLR) {
err = pcie_flr(dev->pdev);
if (err) {
dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Adapter reset failed (%d). Please reboot\n", err);
return err;
}
dev->flags &= ~QLCNIC_NEED_FLR;
}
Or, if there are qlcnic devices that don't support FLR:
if (dev->flags & QLCNIC_NEED_FLR) {
err = pci_reset_function(dev->pdev);
if (err) {
dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Adapter reset failed (%d). Please reboot\n", err);
return err;
}
dev->flags &= ~QLCNIC_NEED_FLR;
}
Thanks Bjorn,
that is very helpful.
I think that in order to move to option #1 some information would be needed
from those familiar with the device(s). As it is a more invasive change -
pci_reset_function -> pcie_flr.
So my feeling is that, in lieu of such feedback, option #2 is a good
improvement on the current code.
OTOH, this driver is 'Supported' as opposed to 'Maintained'.
So perhaps we can just use our best judgement and go for option #1.
So, it looks like option #2 is the safest choice as we do reset only if FLR
is needed (when pci_reset_function() makes sense)
If all agree with that I'll re-send the path
Yes. Maybe wait 24h, and if there is no further feedback go ahead with that
plan?
Ok, will do so. Thanks!
