RE: [PATCH] hv_netvsc:Register VF in netvsc_probe if NET_DEVICE_REGISTER missed

[Haiyang Zhang]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dexuan Cui <decui@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2024 12:40 PM
> To: Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Shradha Gupta
> <shradhagupta@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: KY Srinivasan <kys@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Wei Liu <wei.liu@xxxxxxxxxx>;
> David S. Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Eric Dumazet
> <edumazet@xxxxxxxxxx>; Jakub Kicinski <kuba@xxxxxxxxxx>; Paolo Abeni
> <pabeni@xxxxxxxxxx>; Wojciech Drewek <wojciech.drewek@xxxxxxxxx>; linux-
> hyperv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-
> kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Shradha Gupta <shradhagupta@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
> stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [PATCH] hv_netvsc:Register VF in netvsc_probe if
> NET_DEVICE_REGISTER missed
> 
> > From: Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2024 8:46 AM
> >  [...]
> > > From: Shradha Gupta <shradhagupta@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2024 2:54 AM
> > > > [...]
> > > > > +		netvsc_prepare_bonding(vf_netdev);
> > > > > +		netvsc_register_vf(vf_netdev, VF_REG_IN_PROBE);
> > > > > +		__netvsc_vf_setup(net, vf_netdev);
> > > >
> > > > add a "break;' ?
> > > With MANA devices and multiport support there, the individual ports
> are
> > > also net_devices.
> > > Wouldn't this be needed for such scenario(where we have multiple mana
> > > port net devices) to
> > > register them all?
> >
> > Each device has separate probe() call, so only one VF will match in one
> > netvsc_probe().
> >
> > netvsc_prepare_bonding() &  netvsc_register_vf() have
> > get_netvsc_byslot(vf_netdev), but __netvsc_vf_setup() doesn't have. So,
> > in case of multi-Vfs, this code will run "this" netvsc NIC with
> multiple VFs by
> > __netvsc_vf_setup() which isn't correct.
> >
> > You need to add the following lines before
> > netvsc_prepare_bonding(vf_netdev)
> > in netvsc_probe() to skip non-matching VFs:
> >
> > if (net != get_netvsc_byslot(vf_netdev))
> > 	continue;
> 
> Haiyang is correct.
> I think it's still good to add a "break;", e.g. my understanding is
> something
> like the below (this is untested):
> 
> +static struct net_device *get_matching_netvsc_dev(net_device
> *event_ndev)
> +{
> +       /* Skip NetVSC interfaces */
> +       if (event_ndev->netdev_ops == &device_ops)
> +               return NULL;
> +
> +       /* Avoid non-Ethernet type devices */
> +       if (event_ndev->type != ARPHRD_ETHER)
> +               return NULL;
> +
> +       /* Avoid Vlan dev with same MAC registering as VF */
> +       if (is_vlan_dev(event_ndev))
> +               return NULL;
> +
> +       /* Avoid Bonding master dev with same MAC registering as VF */
> +       if (netif_is_bond_master(event_ndev))
> +               return NULL;
> +
> +       return get_netvsc_byslot(event_ndev);
> +}

Looks good. 
But, like you said before, the four if's can be moved into a new function,
and shared by two callers: netvsc_probe() & netvsc_netdev_event().


> 
> +	for_each_netdev(dev_net(net), vf_netdev) {
> + 		if (get_matching_netvsc_dev(event_dev) != net)
> +			continue;
> +
> +		netvsc_prepare_bonding(vf_netdev);
> +		netvsc_register_vf(vf_netdev, VF_REG_IN_PROBE);
> +		__netvsc_vf_setup(net, vf_netdev);
> +
> +		break;
> +	}
> 
> We can also use get_matching_netvsc_dev() in netvsc_netdev_event().

netvsc_netdev_event() >> netvsc_unregister_vf() uses get_netvsc_byref(vf_netdev)
instead of get_netvsc_byslot().
So probably just re-factoring the four if's is better.

Thanks,
-Haiyang