Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 28 Nov 2023 11:13:39 +0800 | Subject | Re: [PATCH net-next v2 7/7] net/smc: manage system EID in SMC stack instead of ISM driver | From | Wen Gu <> |
| |
On 2023/11/27 22:04, Alexandra Winter wrote: > > > On 24.11.23 15:42, Wen Gu wrote: >> The System EID (SEID) is an internal EID that is used by the SMCv2 >> software stack that has a predefined and constant value representing >> the s390 physical machine that the OS is executing on. So it should >> be managed by SMC stack instead of ISM driver and be consistent for >> all ISMv2 device (including virtual ISM devices) on s390 architecture. >> >> Suggested-by: Alexandra Winter <wintera@linux.ibm.com> >> Signed-off-by: Wen Gu <guwen@linux.alibaba.com> >> --- > > Yes, this is what I had in mind. Thank you Wen Gu.
:) > [...] > >> >> diff --git a/drivers/s390/net/ism.h b/drivers/s390/net/ism.h >> index 70c5bbd..49ccbd68 100644 >> --- a/drivers/s390/net/ism.h >> +++ b/drivers/s390/net/ism.h > > Please remove ISM_IDENT_MASK from drivers/s390/net/ism.h > [...] >
Thanks for reminding. I will remove it.
>> --- a/drivers/s390/net/ism_drv.c >> +++ b/drivers/s390/net/ism_drv.c >> @@ -36,6 +36,7 @@ > [...] >> -static void ism_create_system_eid(void) >> -{ >> - struct cpuid id; >> - u16 ident_tail; >> - char tmp[5]; >> - >> - get_cpu_id(&id); >> - ident_tail = (u16)(id.ident & ISM_IDENT_MASK); >> - snprintf(tmp, 5, "%04X", ident_tail); >> - memcpy(&SYSTEM_EID.serial_number, tmp, 4); >> - snprintf(tmp, 5, "%04X", id.machine); >> - memcpy(&SYSTEM_EID.type, tmp, 4); >> -} >> - > [...] >> @@ -560,7 +535,7 @@ static int ism_dev_init(struct ism_dev *ism) >> >> if (!ism_add_vlan_id(ism, ISM_RESERVED_VLANID)) >> /* hardware is V2 capable */ >> - ism_create_system_eid(); >> + ism_v2_capable = true; >> > > Please assign 'false' in the else path. > This is required here for backwards compatibility. Hardware that only supports v1, > will reject ISM_RESERVED_VLANID. >
OK. I will assign false in the else path to explicitly express the meaning. Thank you.
> [...] > > >> --- a/net/smc/smc_ism.c >> +++ b/net/smc/smc_ism.c > [...] >> @@ -70,6 +91,11 @@ bool smc_ism_is_v2_capable(void) >> return smc_ism_v2_capable; >> } >> >> +void smc_ism_set_v2_capable(void) >> +{ >> + smc_ism_v2_capable = true; >> +} >> + >> /* Set a connection using this DMBE. */ >> void smc_ism_set_conn(struct smc_connection *conn) >> { >> @@ -431,14 +457,8 @@ static void smcd_register_dev(struct ism_dev *ism) >> >> mutex_lock(&smcd_dev_list.mutex); >> if (list_empty(&smcd_dev_list.list)) { >> - u8 *system_eid = NULL; >> - >> - system_eid = smcd->ops->get_system_eid(); >> - if (smcd->ops->supports_v2()) { >> - smc_ism_v2_capable = true; >> - memcpy(smc_ism_v2_system_eid, system_eid, >> - SMC_MAX_EID_LEN); >> - } >> + if (smcd->ops->supports_v2()) >> + smc_ism_set_v2_capable(); > > I don't see the benefit in declaring smc_ism_set_v2_capable() and exporting it in smc_ism.h, > when it is used only once and only here. > Why don't you just set > smc_ism_v2_capable = true; > here? >
Yes.. it may be confusing if readers only look at this patch set.
It is because loopback-ism (or other kinds of ISMv2.1) will also use this helper in such as smc_loopback.c to set smc_ism_v2_capable (defined in smc_ism.c) as true. So I think it may be better to introduce a helper here instead of exposing smc_ism_v2_capable variable.
Thanks.
> [...] >> diff --git a/net/smc/smc_ism.h b/net/smc/smc_ism.h >> index 0e5e563..6903cd5 100644 >> --- a/net/smc/smc_ism.h >> +++ b/net/smc/smc_ism.h >> @@ -16,6 +16,7 @@ >> #include "smc.h" >> >> #define SMC_VIRTUAL_ISM_CHID_MASK 0xFF00 >> +#define SMC_ISM_IDENT_MASK 0x00FFFF >> > [...] >> @@ -45,6 +52,7 @@ int smc_ism_register_dmb(struct smc_link_group *lgr, int buf_size, >> void smc_ism_get_system_eid(u8 **eid); >> u16 smc_ism_get_chid(struct smcd_dev *dev); >> bool smc_ism_is_v2_capable(void); >> +void smc_ism_set_v2_capable(void); >> int smc_ism_init(void); >> void smc_ism_exit(void); >> int smcd_nl_get_device(struct sk_buff *skb, struct netlink_callback *cb);
| |