On Tue, 15 Dec 2020 01:03:47 -0800 Saeed Mahameed wrote:
> From: Parav Pandit <parav@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Extended devlink interface for the user to add and delete port.
> Extend devlink to connect user requests to driver to add/delete
> such port in the device.
>
> When driver routines are invoked, devlink instance lock is not held.
> This enables driver to perform several devlink objects registration,
> unregistration such as (port, health reporter, resource etc)
> by using existing devlink APIs.
> This also helps to uniformly use the code for port unregistration
> during driver unload and during port deletion initiated by user.
>
> Examples of add, show and delete commands:
> $ devlink dev eswitch set pci/0000:06:00.0 mode switchdev
>
> $ devlink port show
> pci/0000:06:00.0/65535: type eth netdev ens2f0np0 flavour physical port 0 splittable false
>
> $ devlink port add pci/0000:06:00.0 flavour pcisf pfnum 0 sfnum 88
>
> $ devlink port show pci/0000:06:00.0/32768
> pci/0000:06:00.0/32768: type eth netdev eth0 flavour pcisf controller 0 pfnum 0 sfnum 88 external false splittable false
> function:
> hw_addr 00:00:00:00:88:88 state inactive opstate detached
>
> $ udevadm test-builtin net_id /sys/class/net/eth0
> Load module index
> Parsed configuration file /usr/lib/systemd/network/99-default.link
> Created link configuration context.
> Using default interface naming scheme 'v245'.
> ID_NET_NAMING_SCHEME=v245
> ID_NET_NAME_PATH=enp6s0f0npf0sf88
> ID_NET_NAME_SLOT=ens2f0npf0sf88
> Unload module index
> Unloaded link configuration context.
>
> Signed-off-by: Parav Pandit <parav@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Reviewed-by: Jiri Pirko <jiri@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Reviewed-by: Vu Pham <vuhuong@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@xxxxxxxxxx>
> diff --git a/include/net/devlink.h b/include/net/devlink.h
> index 5bd43f0a79a8..f8cff3e402da 100644
> --- a/include/net/devlink.h
> +++ b/include/net/devlink.h
> @@ -153,6 +153,17 @@ struct devlink_port {
> struct mutex reporters_lock; /* Protects reporter_list */
> };
>
> +struct devlink_port_new_attrs {
> + enum devlink_port_flavour flavour;
> + unsigned int port_index;
> + u32 controller;
> + u32 sfnum;
> + u16 pfnum;
Oh. So you had the structure which actually gets stored in memory for
the lifetime of the device in patch 3 mispacked (u32 / u16 / u32 / u8).
But this one with arguments is packed. Please be consistent.
> + u8 port_index_valid:1,
> + controller_valid:1,
> + sfnum_valid:1;
> +};
> +
> struct devlink_sb_pool_info {
> enum devlink_sb_pool_type pool_type;
> u32 size;
> @@ -1363,6 +1374,34 @@ struct devlink_ops {
> int (*port_function_hw_addr_set)(struct devlink *devlink, struct devlink_port *port,
> const u8 *hw_addr, int hw_addr_len,
> struct netlink_ext_ack *extack);
> + /**
> + * @port_new: Port add function.
> + *
> + * Should be used by device driver to let caller add new port of a
> + * specified flavour with optional attributes.
Add a new port of a specified flavor with optional attributes.
> + * Driver should return -EOPNOTSUPP if it doesn't support port addition
s/should/must/
> + * of a specified flavour or specified attributes. Driver should set
> + * extack error message in case of fail to add the port. Devlink core
s/fail to add the port/failure/
> + * does not hold a devlink instance lock when this callback is invoked.
Called without holding the devlink instance lock.
> + * Driver must ensures synchronization when adding or deleting a port.
s/ensures/ensure/ but really that's pretty obvious from the previous
sentence.
> + * Driver must register a port with devlink core.
s/must/is expected to/
Please make sure your comments and documentation are proof read by
someone.
> +static int devlink_nl_cmd_port_new_doit(struct sk_buff *skb,
> + struct genl_info *info)
> +{
> + struct netlink_ext_ack *extack = info->extack;
> + struct devlink_port_new_attrs new_attrs = {};
> + struct devlink *devlink = info->user_ptr[0];
> +
> + if (!info->attrs[DEVLINK_ATTR_PORT_FLAVOUR] ||
> + !info->attrs[DEVLINK_ATTR_PORT_PCI_PF_NUMBER]) {
> + NL_SET_ERR_MSG_MOD(extack, "Port flavour or PCI PF are not specified");
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
> + new_attrs.flavour = nla_get_u16(info->attrs[DEVLINK_ATTR_PORT_FLAVOUR]);
> + new_attrs.pfnum =
> + nla_get_u16(info->attrs[DEVLINK_ATTR_PORT_PCI_PF_NUMBER]);
> +
> + if (info->attrs[DEVLINK_ATTR_PORT_INDEX]) {
> + new_attrs.port_index =
> + nla_get_u32(info->attrs[DEVLINK_ATTR_PORT_INDEX]);
> + new_attrs.port_index_valid = true;
> + }
This is the desired port index of the new port?
Or the index of the parent port?
Let's make it abundantly clear since its a pass-thru argument for the
driver to interpret.
> + if (info->attrs[DEVLINK_ATTR_PORT_CONTROLLER_NUMBER]) {
> + new_attrs.controller =
> + nla_get_u16(info->attrs[DEVLINK_ATTR_PORT_CONTROLLER_NUMBER]);
> + new_attrs.controller_valid = true;
> + }
> + if (info->attrs[DEVLINK_ATTR_PORT_PCI_SF_NUMBER]) {
> + new_attrs.sfnum = nla_get_u32(info->attrs[DEVLINK_ATTR_PORT_PCI_SF_NUMBER]);
> + new_attrs.sfnum_valid = true;
> + }
> +
> + if (!devlink->ops->port_new)
> + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
Why is this check not at the beginning of the function?
Also should there be an extack on it?
> + return devlink->ops->port_new(devlink, &new_attrs, extack);
This should return the identifier of the created port back to user
space.
