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;
Date:   Tue, 15 Sep 2020 08:18:44 +0200
From:   Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>
To:     Michael Chan <michael.chan@broadcom.com>
Cc:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        Vasundhara Volam <vasundhara-v.volam@broadcom.com>,
        Moshe Shemesh <moshe@mellanox.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@mellanox.com>,
        Netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next RFC v4 01/15] devlink: Add reload action option
 to devlink reload command
Message-ID: <20200915061844.GL2236@nanopsycho.orion>
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>
 <CAACQVJqVV_YLfV002wxU2s1WJUa3_AvqwMMVr8KLAtTa0d9iOw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200914112829.GC2236@nanopsycho.orion>
 <20200914143100.06a4641d@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
 <CACKFLinODtbqezEeYdiEwcgkTdCa66D3D5_Xx+OjT23qsLi4Og@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CACKFLinODtbqezEeYdiEwcgkTdCa66D3D5_Xx+OjT23qsLi4Og@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 12:06:19AM CEST, michael.chan@broadcom.com wrote:
>On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 2:31 PM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 13:28:29 +0200 Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> > >> 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.
>> >
>> > Why not? mlxsw reset takes up to like 10 seconds for example.
>>
>> +1, why?
>
>Yes, we should be able to block until the reset sequence is complete.
>I don't see any problem.  I will work with Vasundhara on this.

Could you please also remove fw_reset as it is apparently misuse of
devlink health mechanism?

Thanks!