Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3] net/hns3: fix parse link fails code fail

[Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>]

On 4/27/2021 1:17 PM, Min Hu (Connor) wrote:
> From: Chengwen Feng <fengchengwen@huawei.com>
> 
> The link fails code should be parsed using the structure
> hns3_mbx_vf_to_pf_cmd, else it will parse fail.
> 
> Fixes: 109e4dd1bd7a ("net/hns3: get link state change through mailbox")
> Cc: stable@dpdk.org
> 
> Signed-off-by: Chengwen Feng <fengchengwen@huawei.com>
> Signed-off-by: Min Hu (Connor) <humin29@huawei.com>
> ---
> v3:
> * get the parameter as 'struct hns3_mbx_vf_to_pf_cmd' at first place.
> 
> v2:
> * kept original API interface.
> ---
>  drivers/net/hns3/hns3_mbx.c | 11 +++++++++--
>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/net/hns3/hns3_mbx.c b/drivers/net/hns3/hns3_mbx.c
> index ba04ac9..31ab130 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/hns3/hns3_mbx.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/hns3/hns3_mbx.c
> @@ -347,7 +347,7 @@ hns3_link_fail_parse(struct hns3_hw *hw, uint8_t link_fail_code)
>  
>  static void
>  hns3pf_handle_link_change_event(struct hns3_hw *hw,
> -			      struct hns3_mbx_pf_to_vf_cmd *req)
> +				struct hns3_mbx_vf_to_pf_cmd *req)
>  {
>  #define LINK_STATUS_OFFSET     1
>  #define LINK_FAIL_CODE_OFFSET  2
> @@ -513,7 +513,14 @@ hns3_dev_handle_mbx_msg(struct hns3_hw *hw)
>  			hns3_handle_asserting_reset(hw, req);
>  			break;
>  		case HNS3_MBX_PUSH_LINK_STATUS:
> -			hns3pf_handle_link_change_event(hw, req);
> +			/*
> +			 * This message is reported by the firmware and is
> +			 * reported in 'struct hns3_mbx_vf_to_pf_cmd' format.
> +			 * Therefore, we should cast the req variable to
> +			 * 'struct hns3_mbx_vf_to_pf_cmd' and then process it.
> +			 */

I am asking just to double check, the 'msg' type is different of
'hns3_mbx_pf_to_vf_cmd' & 'hns3_mbx_vf_to_pf_cmd', one is 'uint8_t', other is
'uint16_t', and 'msg' is used in the function 'hns3pf_handle_link_change_event()'.
Is the 'msg' usage still correct after this change?

> +			hns3pf_handle_link_change_event(hw,
> +				(struct hns3_mbx_vf_to_pf_cmd *)req);

Will it be more readable if 'desc->data' cast to "struct hns3_mbx_vf_to_pf_cmd
*" (instead of 'req')? Up to you, I can proceed with this one if you prefer.