Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1600063682-17313-1-git-send-email-moshe@mellanox.com>
 <1600063682-17313-2-git-send-email-moshe@mellanox.com> <CAACQVJochmfmUgKSvSTe4McFvG6=ffBbkfXsrOJjiCDwQVvaRw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200914093234.GB2236@nanopsycho.orion>
In-Reply-To: <20200914093234.GB2236@nanopsycho.orion>
From:   Vasundhara Volam <vasundhara-v.volam@broadcom.com>
Date:   Mon, 14 Sep 2020 15:24:55 +0530
Message-ID: <CAACQVJqVV_YLfV002wxU2s1WJUa3_AvqwMMVr8KLAtTa0d9iOw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next RFC v4 01/15] devlink: Add reload action option
 to devlink reload command
To:     Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>
Cc:     Moshe Shemesh <moshe@mellanox.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@mellanox.com>,
        Netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Michael Chan <michael.chan@broadcom.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 3:02 PM Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us> wrote:
>
> Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 09:08:58AM CEST, vasundhara-v.volam@broadcom.com wrote:
> >On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 11:39 AM Moshe Shemesh <moshe@mellanox.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>
> >> @@ -1126,15 +1126,24 @@ mlxsw_devlink_core_bus_device_reload_down(struct devlink *devlink,
> >>  }
> >>
> >>  static int
> >> -mlxsw_devlink_core_bus_device_reload_up(struct devlink *devlink,
> >> -                                       struct netlink_ext_ack *extack)
> >> +mlxsw_devlink_core_bus_device_reload_up(struct devlink *devlink, enum devlink_reload_action action,
> >> +                                       struct netlink_ext_ack *extack,
> >> +                                       unsigned long *actions_performed)
> >Sorry for repeating again, for fw_activate action on our device, all
> >the driver entities undergo reset asynchronously once user initiates
> >"devlink dev reload action fw_activate" and reload_up does not have
> >much to do except reporting actions that will be/being performed.
> >
> >Once reset is complete, the health reporter will be notified using
>
> Hmm, how is the fw reset related to health reporter recovery? Recovery
> happens after some error event. I don't believe it is wise to mix it.
Our device has a fw_reset health reporter, which is updated on reset
events and firmware activation is one among them. All non-fatal
firmware reset events are reported on fw_reset health reporter.

>
> Instead, why don't you block in reload_up() until the reset is complete?

Though user initiate "devlink dev reload" event on a single interface,
all driver entities undergo reset and all entities recover
independently. I don't think we can block the reload_up() on the
interface(that user initiated the command), until whole reset is
complete.
>
>
> >devlink_health_reporter_recovery_done(). Returning from reload_up does
> >not guarantee successful activation of firmware. Status of reset will
> >be notified to the health reporter via
> >devlink_health_reporter_state_update().
> >
> >I am just repeating this, so I want to know if I am on the same page.
> >
> >Thanks.
>
> [...]