Re: [PATCH net v5 0/4] bnxt_en: Make RING FREE more robust

[Michael Chan]

On Tue, Nov 10, 2026 at 9:39 AM Joe Damato <joe@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 09, 2026 at 04:13:57PM -0800, Michael Chan wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 9, 2026 at 12:12 PM Joe Damato <joe@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > >   - Notifying bnxt_re when DMA is stopped.
> >
> > I think this is probably the one item that should be added to the
> > patchset.  When DMA is disabled, RoCE will not work at all so adding
> > this will make the series more complete.  It may be as simple as
> > calling bnxt_ulp_stop(), but I haven't looked into it in detail.
>
> Hm. bnxt_stop_dma runs with rtnl and the netdev instance lock held and
> bnxt_ulp_stop -> bnxt_re_suspend takes both. So, I don't think calling
> bnxt_ulp_stop is going to work.
>
> Maybe I need to make a new patch where bnxt_stop_dma queues a work item that
> calls bnxt_ulp_stop without locks being held? Not sure.
>
> Also: would you be OK with bnxt_re treating BNXT_STATE_DMA_STOPPED as
> detached? I'm probably getting this wrong but I think with DMA off
> bnxt_re_suspend only takes the detach path when FW_FATAL_COND is set.
>

I'm copying our RoCE developers Selvin and Kalesh.  I think that if
you call bnxt_re_suspend() before you disable DMA, nothing special
needs to be done because the chip is still functioning.  It will go
through the normal removal process.

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature