On 2021/2/23 下午5:26, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 08:05:26AM +0200, Eli Cohen wrote:
On Sun, Feb 21, 2021 at 04:52:05PM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Sun, Feb 21, 2021 at 04:44:37PM +0200, Eli Cohen wrote:
On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 06:54:58AM -0500, Si-Wei Liu wrote:
Commit 452639a64ad8 ("vdpa: make sure set_features is invoked
for legacy") made an exception for legacy guests to reset
features to 0, when config space is accessed before features
are set. We should relieve the verify_min_features() check
and allow features reset to 0 for this case.
It's worth noting that not just legacy guests could access
config space before features are set. For instance, when
feature VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU is advertised some modern driver
will try to access and validate the MTU present in the config
space before virtio features are set. Rejecting reset to 0
prematurely causes correct MTU and link status unable to load
for the very first config space access, rendering issues like
guest showing inaccurate MTU value, or failure to reject
out-of-range MTU.
Fixes: 1a86b377aa21 ("vdpa/mlx5: Add VDPA driver for supported mlx5 devices")
Signed-off-by: Si-Wei Liu<si-wei.liu@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/vdpa/mlx5/net/mlx5_vnet.c | 15 +--------------
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/vdpa/mlx5/net/mlx5_vnet.c b/drivers/vdpa/mlx5/net/mlx5_vnet.c
index 7c1f789..540dd67 100644
--- a/drivers/vdpa/mlx5/net/mlx5_vnet.c
+++ b/drivers/vdpa/mlx5/net/mlx5_vnet.c
@@ -1490,14 +1490,6 @@ static u64 mlx5_vdpa_get_features(struct vdpa_device *vdev)
return mvdev->mlx_features;
}
-static int verify_min_features(struct mlx5_vdpa_dev *mvdev, u64 features)
-{
- if (!(features & BIT_ULL(VIRTIO_F_ACCESS_PLATFORM)))
- return -EOPNOTSUPP;
-
- return 0;
-}
-
But what if VIRTIO_F_ACCESS_PLATFORM is not offerred? This does not
support such cases.
Did you mean "catch such cases" rather than "support"?
Actually I meant this driver/device does not support such cases.
Well the removed code merely failed without VIRTIO_F_ACCESS_PLATFORM
it didn't actually try to support anything ...
I think it's used to catch the driver that doesn't support ACCESS_PLATFORM?
Thanks
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
