Received-SPF: softfail (google.com: domain of transitioning linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org does not designate 23.128.96.19 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.19;
Date:   Thu, 24 Mar 2022 12:25:58 +0100
From:   Maciej Fijalkowski <maciej.fijalkowski@intel.com>
To:     "Keller, Jacob E" <jacob.e.keller@intel.com>
Cc:     Ivan Vecera <ivecera@redhat.com>,
        "netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        "poros@redhat.com" <poros@redhat.com>,
        "mschmidt@redhat.com" <mschmidt@redhat.com>,
        "Brandeburg, Jesse" <jesse.brandeburg@intel.com>,
        "Nguyen, Anthony L" <anthony.l.nguyen@intel.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
        "moderated list:INTEL ETHERNET DRIVERS" 
        <intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] ice: Fix MAC address setting
Message-ID: <YjxVRqTppQeYKb1h@boxer>
References: <20220323135829.4015645-1-ivecera@redhat.com>
 <CO1PR11MB508946CC906E8B851D69D31AD6189@CO1PR11MB5089.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CO1PR11MB508946CC906E8B851D69D31AD6189@CO1PR11MB5089.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 05:28:02PM +0000, Keller, Jacob E wrote:
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ivan Vecera <ivecera@redhat.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2022 6:58 AM
> > To: netdev@vger.kernel.org
> > Cc: poros@redhat.com; mschmidt@redhat.com; Brandeburg, Jesse
> > <jesse.brandeburg@intel.com>; Nguyen, Anthony L
> > <anthony.l.nguyen@intel.com>; David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>; Jakub
> > Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>; Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>; moderated
> > list:INTEL ETHERNET DRIVERS <intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org>; open list <linux-
> > kernel@vger.kernel.org>
> > Subject: [PATCH net] ice: Fix MAC address setting
> > 
> > Commit 2ccc1c1ccc671b ("ice: Remove excess error variables") merged
> > the usage of 'status' and 'err' variables into single one in
> > function ice_set_mac_address(). Unfortunately this causes
> > a regression when call of ice_fltr_add_mac() returns -EEXIST because
> > this return value does not indicate an error in this case but
> > value of 'err' value remains to be -EEXIST till the end of

s/'err' value/'err'

> > the function and is returned to caller.
> > 
> > Prior this commit this does not happen because return value of

s/this/mentioned ?

> > ice_fltr_add_mac() was stored to 'status' variable first and
> > if it was -EEXIST then 'err' remains to be zero.
> > 
> > The patch fixes the problem by reset 'err' to zero when
> > ice_fltr_add_mac() returns -EEXIST.

Again, i'd recommend imperative mood. Besides, good catch!

> > 
> > Fixes: 2ccc1c1ccc671b ("ice: Remove excess error variables")
> > Signed-off-by: Ivan Vecera <ivecera@redhat.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_main.c | 5 +++--
> >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_main.c
> > b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_main.c
> > index 168a41ea37b8..420558d1cd21 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_main.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_main.c
> > @@ -5474,14 +5474,15 @@ static int ice_set_mac_address(struct net_device
> > *netdev, void *pi)
> > 
> >  	/* Add filter for new MAC. If filter exists, return success */
> >  	err = ice_fltr_add_mac(vsi, mac, ICE_FWD_TO_VSI);
> > -	if (err == -EEXIST)
> > +	if (err == -EEXIST) {
> >  		/* Although this MAC filter is already present in hardware it's
> >  		 * possible in some cases (e.g. bonding) that dev_addr was
> >  		 * modified outside of the driver and needs to be restored back
> >  		 * to this value.
> >  		 */
> >  		netdev_dbg(netdev, "filter for MAC %pM already exists\n", mac);
> > -	else if (err)
> > +		err = 0;
> > +	} else if (err)
> >  		/* error if the new filter addition failed */
> >  		err = -EADDRNOTAVAIL;
> > 
> 
> Style wise, don't we typically use {} for all branches if its needed on one?

+1, please add braces around second branch as well.

> 
> I'm ok takin this fix as-is now and doing the {} fix up afterwards if we want to avoid delay.
> 
> Thanks,
> Jake
> 
> > --
> > 2.34.1
>