> From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2020 5:59 AM
>
> > +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.
>
Ok. I will change the packing in patch 3.
> > + 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/
>
Ack.
> > + * 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/
>
Ack.
> > + * does not hold a devlink instance lock when this callback is invoked.
>
> Called without holding the devlink instance lock.
>
Ack.
> > + * Driver must ensures synchronization when adding or deleting a
> port.
>
> s/ensures/ensure/ but really that's pretty obvious from the previous
> sentence.
>
It may be, but this extra clarity helps, so I am going to keep this explicit description.
> > + * Driver must register a port with devlink core.
>
> s/must/is expected to/
>
Ack.
> Please make sure your comments and documentation are proof read by
> someone.
>
Ack.
> > +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?
Yes.
> Let's make it abundantly clear since its a pass-thru argument for the driver to
> interpret.
>
Ok. Will add comment here.
> > + 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?
Will move it up.
> Also should there be an extack on it?
>
Will check, and add if required.
> > + return devlink->ops->port_new(devlink, &new_attrs, extack);
>
> This should return the identifier of the created port back to user space.
Ok. Will add.
