Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] driver: i40evf device initialization

[Ben Magistro <koncept1@gmail.com>]

Hello,

Replying here as I'm a little stuck and hoping someone has some advice for
what the next steps should be.

Going from the list above of how to get this noticed by the LTS
maintainer(s), the patch, well commit message + subject were revised and
resent to the list (
https://patches.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/patch/20211012141752.6376-1-koncept1@gmail.com/)
but the i40evf has since been removed from main already so options 1 & 2
seem to no longer apply.  This seems to put us into option 3 of a
backported patch?  Is it just a subject line change then or can this be
pulled out of the "not applicable" pile still?

Thanks and appreciate the advice,

Ben Magistro

On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 10:52 PM Ben Magistro <koncept1@gmail.com> wrote:

> +cc: stable@dpdk.org
>
> Per discussions here, cc'ing stable for fix to be applied to LTS as
> i40evf is being removed from next.
>
> On Thu, Sep 2, 2021 at 8:37 AM Xueming(Steven) Li <xuemingl@nvidia.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
> > > Sent: Monday, August 30, 2021 5:43 PM
> > > To: Xueming(Steven) Li <xuemingl@nvidia.com>; Kevin Traynor <
> ktraynor@redhat.com>; Ben Magistro <koncept1@gmail.com>;
> > > dev@dpdk.org; Beilei Xing <beilei.xing@intel.com>; Luca Boccassi <
> bluca@debian.org>; Christian Ehrhardt
> > > <christian.ehrhardt@canonical.com>
> > > Cc: ben.magistro@trinitycyber.com; stefan.baranoff@trinitycyber.com;
> Qi Zhang <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>
> > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] driver: i40evf device initialization
> > >
> > > On 8/27/2021 7:28 AM, Xueming(Steven) Li wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >> -----Original Message-----
> > > >> From: Kevin Traynor <ktraynor@redhat.com>
> > > >> Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2021 6:46 PM
> > > >> To: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>; Ben Magistro
> > > >> <koncept1@gmail.com>; dev@dpdk.org; Beilei Xing
> > > >> <beilei.xing@intel.com>; Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org>;
> Christian
> > > >> Ehrhardt <christian.ehrhardt@canonical.com>; Xueming(Steven) Li
> > > >> <xuemingl@nvidia.com>
> > > >> Cc: ben.magistro@trinitycyber.com; stefan.baranoff@trinitycyber.com
> ;
> > > >> Qi Zhang <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>
> > > >> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] driver: i40evf device initialization
> > > >>
> > > >> + Christian and Xueming
> > > >>
> > > >> On 26/08/2021 11:25, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> > > >>> On 8/25/2021 8:45 PM, Ben Magistro wrote:
> > > >>>> The i40evf driver is not initializing the eth_dev attribute which
> > > >>>> can result in a nullptr dereference. Changes were modeled after
> the
> > > >>>> iavf_dev_init() per suggestion from the mailing list[1].
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> [1] https://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2021-August/217251.html
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Signed-off-by: Ben Magistro <koncept1@gmail.com>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> i40evf will be removed in this release. But I guess it helps for
> > > >>> stable releases to first merge the fixes and later removed it, not
> sure.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> @Luca, @Kevin, do you prefer this patch directly to stable repos,
> or
> > > >>> through the main repo?
> > > >>
> > > >> I'll leave to Luca/Xueming and Christian to say if they have a
> > > >> preference, but I'd guess either way is fine from stable view once
> it has fixes/stable tags or LTS patch prefix (it doesn't have any of
> > > these at present).
> > > >
> > > > Yes, any option will make it being noticed by LTS maintainer:
> > > > 1. patches accepted by main with "fix" in subject 2. patches accepted
> > > > by main with "cc: stable@dpdk.org" in commit message 3. patches
> > > > backported to LTS, sent to stable maillist with LTS prefix, for
> example "[20.11]"
> > > >
> > >
> > > Thanks Xueming,
> > >
> > > But is there a preferences for this case?
> > >
> > > The i40evf will be removed from main repo, is it better
> > > 1- first apply the fix and remove the component from main (I assume
> fix still will be bacported to LTS in this case) or
> > > 2- remove the i40evf from main (without fix), apply the fix directly
> to the LTS.
> >
> > Both options will work, the first is more easy and common I guess, both
> 19.11 LTS and 20.11 LTS maintainer can find it.
> >
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > ferruh
> > >
> > > >>
> > > >>> i40evf won't be tested in the main anyway, since it would be
> removed
> > > >>> before -rc1 testing, so it looks like there won't be any
> difference from testing point of view.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> ---
> > > >>>>  drivers/net/i40e/i40e_ethdev_vf.c | 8 ++++++--
> > > >>>>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/i40e/i40e_ethdev_vf.c
> > > >>>> b/drivers/net/i40e/i40e_ethdev_vf.c
> > > >>>> index 0cfe13b7b2..ccdce9a16a 100644
> > > >>>> --- a/drivers/net/i40e/i40e_ethdev_vf.c
> > > >>>> +++ b/drivers/net/i40e/i40e_ethdev_vf.c
> > > >>>> @@ -1564,8 +1564,9 @@ i40evf_dev_alarm_handler(void *param)
> static
> > > >>>> int  i40evf_dev_init(struct rte_eth_dev *eth_dev)  {
> > > >>>> -        struct i40e_hw *hw
> > > >>>> -                =
> I40E_DEV_PRIVATE_TO_HW(eth_dev->data->dev_private);
> > > >>>> +        struct i40e_adapter *adapter =
> > > >>>> +
> I40E_DEV_PRIVATE_TO_ADAPTER(eth_dev->data->dev_private);
> > > >>>> +        struct i40e_hw *hw = I40E_DEV_PRIVATE_TO_HW(adapter);
> > > >>>>          struct rte_pci_device *pci_dev =
> RTE_ETH_DEV_TO_PCI(eth_dev);
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>          PMD_INIT_FUNC_TRACE();
> > > >>>> @@ -1596,11 +1597,14 @@ i40evf_dev_init(struct rte_eth_dev
> *eth_dev)
> > > >>>>          hw->device_id = pci_dev->id.device_id;
> > > >>>>          hw->subsystem_vendor_id =
> pci_dev->id.subsystem_vendor_id;
> > > >>>>          hw->subsystem_device_id =
> pci_dev->id.subsystem_device_id;
> > > >>>> +        hw->bus.bus_id = pci_dev->addr.bus;
> > > >>>>          hw->bus.device = pci_dev->addr.devid;
> > > >>>>          hw->bus.func = pci_dev->addr.function;
> > > >>>>          hw->hw_addr = (void *)pci_dev->mem_resource[0].addr;
> > > >>>>          hw->adapter_stopped = 1;
> > > >>>>          hw->adapter_closed = 0;
> > > >>>> +        hw->back =
> I40E_DEV_PRIVATE_TO_ADAPTER(eth_dev->data->dev_private);
> > > >>>> +        adapter->eth_dev = eth_dev;
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>          if(i40evf_init_vf(eth_dev) != 0) {
> > > >>>>                  PMD_INIT_LOG(ERR, "Init vf failed");
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >
> >
>