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 15:37:05 +0200
From:   Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>
To:     Moshe Shemesh <moshe@nvidia.com>
Cc:     Moshe Shemesh <moshe@mellanox.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@mellanox.com>, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next RFC v4 10/15] net/mlx5: Add support for devlink
 reload action fw activate
Message-ID: <20200915133705.GR2236@nanopsycho.orion>
References: <1600063682-17313-1-git-send-email-moshe@mellanox.com>
 <1600063682-17313-11-git-send-email-moshe@mellanox.com>
 <20200914135442.GJ2236@nanopsycho.orion>
 <565e63b3-2a01-4eba-42d3-f5abc6794ee8@nvidia.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <565e63b3-2a01-4eba-42d3-f5abc6794ee8@nvidia.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 02:44:02PM CEST, moshe@nvidia.com wrote:
>
>On 9/14/2020 4:54 PM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 08:07:57AM CEST, moshe@mellanox.com wrote:
>> 
>> [..]
>> 
>> > +static void mlx5_fw_reset_complete_reload(struct mlx5_core_dev *dev)
>> > +{
>> > +	struct mlx5_fw_reset *fw_reset = dev->priv.fw_reset;
>> > +
>> > +	/* if this is the driver that initiated the fw reset, devlink completed the reload */
>> > +	if (test_bit(MLX5_FW_RESET_FLAGS_PENDING_COMP, &fw_reset->reset_flags)) {
>> > +		complete(&fw_reset->done);
>> > +	} else {
>> > +		mlx5_load_one(dev, false);
>> > +		devlink_reload_implicit_actions_performed(priv_to_devlink(dev),
>> > +							  DEVLINK_RELOAD_ACTION_LIMIT_LEVEL_NONE,
>> > +							  BIT(DEVLINK_RELOAD_ACTION_DRIVER_REINIT) |
>> > +							  BIT(DEVLINK_RELOAD_ACTION_FW_ACTIVATE));
>> Hmm, who originated the reset? Devlink_reload of the same devlink
>> instance?
>
>
>Not the same devlink instance for sure. I defer it by the flag above
>MLX5_FW_RESET_FLAG_PENDING_COMP. If the flag set, I set complete to the
>reload_down() waiting for it.

Hmm, thinking about the stats, as
devlink_reload_implicit_actions_performed() is called only in case
another instance does the reload, shouldn't it be a separate set of
stats? I think that the user would like to distinguish local and remote
reload, don't you think?


>
>
>> [..]