Jason Wang
2021-Jun-04 02:34 UTC
[PATCH v1] vdpa/mlx5: Clear vq ready indication upon device reset
? 2021/6/3 ??4:10, Eli Cohen ??:> After device reset, the virtqueues are not ready so clear the ready > field. > > Failing to do so can result in virtio_vdpa failing to load if the device > was previously used by vhost_vdpa and the old values are ready. > virtio_vdpa expects to find VQs in "not ready" state. > > Fixes: 1a86b377aa21 ("vdpa/mlx5: Add VDPA driver for supported mlx5 devices") > Signed-off-by: Eli Cohen <elic at nvidia.com> > --- > v0 --> v1: > Make sure clear of ready is done only in reset flow > > drivers/vdpa/mlx5/net/mlx5_vnet.c | 9 +++++++++ > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/vdpa/mlx5/net/mlx5_vnet.c b/drivers/vdpa/mlx5/net/mlx5_vnet.c > index 02a05492204c..eaeae67e0ff0 100644 > --- a/drivers/vdpa/mlx5/net/mlx5_vnet.c > +++ b/drivers/vdpa/mlx5/net/mlx5_vnet.c > @@ -1766,6 +1766,14 @@ static void teardown_driver(struct mlx5_vdpa_net *ndev) > mutex_unlock(&ndev->reslock); > } > > +static void clear_vqs_ready(struct mlx5_vdpa_net *ndev) > +{ > + int i; > + > + for (i = ndev->mvdev.max_vqs - 1; i >= 0; i--) > + ndev->vqs[i].ready = false;The patch looks correct but I wonder the reason for the decreasing used in the loop. Usually, it means it has some reason that must be done in that way. Thanks> +} > + > static void mlx5_vdpa_set_status(struct vdpa_device *vdev, u8 status) > { > struct mlx5_vdpa_dev *mvdev = to_mvdev(vdev); > @@ -1776,6 +1784,7 @@ static void mlx5_vdpa_set_status(struct vdpa_device *vdev, u8 status) > if (!status) { > mlx5_vdpa_info(mvdev, "performing device reset\n"); > teardown_driver(ndev); > + clear_vqs_ready(ndev); > mlx5_vdpa_destroy_mr(&ndev->mvdev); > ndev->mvdev.status = 0; > ndev->mvdev.mlx_features = 0;