Re: [PATCH net-next v3 7/7] net/smc: manage system EID in SMC stack instead of ISM driver

[Wen Gu]

On 2023/12/1 19:18, Alexandra Winter wrote:
> On 30.11.23 12:28, Wen Gu wrote:
> > The System EID (SEID) is an internal EID that is used by the SMCv2
> > software stack that has a predefined and constant value representing
> > the s390 physical machine that the OS is executing on. So it should
> > be managed by SMC stack instead of ISM driver and be consistent for
> > all ISMv2 device (including virtual ISM devices) on s390 architecture.
> >
> > Suggested-by: Alexandra Winter <wintera@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Wen Gu <guwen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
>
> Reviewed-by: Alexandra Winter <wintera@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>
> [...]
> > diff --git a/net/smc/smc_ism.c b/net/smc/smc_ism.c
> > index a33f861..ac88de2 100644
> > --- a/net/smc/smc_ism.c
> > +++ b/net/smc/smc_ism.c
> [...]
> > @@ -431,14 +452,8 @@ static void smcd_register_dev(struct ism_dev *ism)
> >   
> >   	mutex_lock(&smcd_dev_list.mutex);
> >   	if (list_empty(&smcd_dev_list.list)) {
> > -		u8 *system_eid = NULL;
> > -
> > -		system_eid = smcd->ops->get_system_eid();
> > -		if (smcd->ops->supports_v2()) {
> > +		if (smcd->ops->supports_v2())
> >   			smc_ism_v2_capable = true;
> > -			memcpy(smc_ism_v2_system_eid, system_eid,
> > -			       SMC_MAX_EID_LEN);
> > -		}
> >   	}
>
> Just a comment:
> Here we only check the first smcd device to determine whether we support v2.
> Which is ok, for today's platform firmware ISM devices, as they are always the same version.
>
> When you add virtual ISM devices (loopback-ism, virtio-ism) then this needs to be changed.
> IMO the logic then needs to be "if all smcd devices support v2,
> then smc_ism_v2_capable = true;
> else smc_ism_v2_capable = false;"

Thank you. I will change this in the loopback-ism patch set.

But I am wondering if loopback-ism coexists with s390 ISMv1, why smc_ism_v2_capable shouldn't be set?
Is it because the SEID generated in this way is not correct if the s390 ISMv2 does not exist?

> I don't know if you would like to change that now in this patch, or later when
> you add when you add the support for loopback.