[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 09/15] net/sfc: use new rte_eth_linkstatus functions
Andrew Rybchenko
arybchenko at solarflare.com
Tue Jan 9 20:29:24 CET 2018
On 01/09/2018 07:27 PM, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Jan 2018 13:35:58 +0300
> Andrew Rybchenko <arybchenko at solarflare.com> wrote:
>
>> On 01/08/2018 08:45 PM, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
>>> Use the new API (_rte_eth_linkstatus_set) to handle link status update.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Stephen Hemminger <stephen at networkplumber.org>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/net/sfc/sfc_ethdev.c | 27 +++++++--------------------
>>> drivers/net/sfc/sfc_ev.c | 23 ++++-------------------
>>> 2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 39 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/sfc/sfc_ethdev.c b/drivers/net/sfc/sfc_ethdev.c
>>> index 2f5f86f84877..e0a12b32b1a3 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/net/sfc/sfc_ethdev.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/net/sfc/sfc_ethdev.c
>>> @@ -238,22 +238,12 @@ static int
>>> sfc_dev_link_update(struct rte_eth_dev *dev, int wait_to_complete)
>>> {
>>> struct sfc_adapter *sa = dev->data->dev_private;
>>> - struct rte_eth_link *dev_link = &dev->data->dev_link;
>>> - struct rte_eth_link old_link;
>>> struct rte_eth_link current_link;
>>>
>>> sfc_log_init(sa, "entry");
>>>
>>> -retry:
>>> - EFX_STATIC_ASSERT(sizeof(*dev_link) == sizeof(rte_atomic64_t));
>>> - *(int64_t *)&old_link = rte_atomic64_read((rte_atomic64_t *)dev_link);
>>> -
>>> if (sa->state != SFC_ADAPTER_STARTED) {
>>> sfc_port_link_mode_to_info(EFX_LINK_UNKNOWN, ¤t_link);
>>> - if (!rte_atomic64_cmpset((volatile uint64_t *)dev_link,
>>> - *(uint64_t *)&old_link,
>>> - *(uint64_t *)¤t_link))
>>> - goto retry;
>>> } else if (wait_to_complete) {
>>> efx_link_mode_t link_mode;
>>>
>>> @@ -261,21 +251,18 @@ sfc_dev_link_update(struct rte_eth_dev *dev, int wait_to_complete)
>>> link_mode = EFX_LINK_UNKNOWN;
>>> sfc_port_link_mode_to_info(link_mode, ¤t_link);
>>>
>>> - if (!rte_atomic64_cmpset((volatile uint64_t *)dev_link,
>>> - *(uint64_t *)&old_link,
>>> - *(uint64_t *)¤t_link))
>>> - goto retry;
>>> } else {
>>> sfc_ev_mgmt_qpoll(sa);
>>> - *(int64_t *)¤t_link =
>>> - rte_atomic64_read((rte_atomic64_t *)dev_link);
>>> + _rte_eth_linkstatus_get(dev, ¤t_link);
>>> }
>>>
>>> - if (old_link.link_status != current_link.link_status)
>>> - sfc_info(sa, "Link status is %s",
>>> - current_link.link_status ? "UP" : "DOWN");
>>> + if (_rte_eth_linkstatus_set(dev, ¤t_link) == 0)
>>> + return 0;
>>> +
>>> + sfc_info(sa, "Link status is %s",
>>> + current_link.link_status ? "UP" : "DOWN");
>>>
>>> - return old_link.link_status == current_link.link_status ? 0 : -1;
>>> + return -1;
>>> }
>>>
>>> static void
>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/sfc/sfc_ev.c b/drivers/net/sfc/sfc_ev.c
>>> index a16dc27b380e..3e96536a9d60 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/net/sfc/sfc_ev.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/net/sfc/sfc_ev.c
>>> @@ -404,29 +404,14 @@ sfc_ev_link_change(void *arg, efx_link_mode_t link_mode)
>>> {
>>> struct sfc_evq *evq = arg;
>>> struct sfc_adapter *sa = evq->sa;
>>> - struct rte_eth_link *dev_link = &sa->eth_dev->data->dev_link;
>>> struct rte_eth_link new_link;
>>> - uint64_t new_link_u64;
>>> - uint64_t old_link_u64;
>>> -
>>> - EFX_STATIC_ASSERT(sizeof(*dev_link) == sizeof(rte_atomic64_t));
>>>
>>> sfc_port_link_mode_to_info(link_mode, &new_link);
>>> + if (_rte_eth_linkstatus_set(sa->eth_dev, &new_link) == 0)
>>> + return B_FALSE;
>>>
>>> - new_link_u64 = *(uint64_t *)&new_link;
>>> - do {
>>> - old_link_u64 = rte_atomic64_read((rte_atomic64_t *)dev_link);
>>> - if (old_link_u64 == new_link_u64)
>>> - break;
>>> -
>>> - if (rte_atomic64_cmpset((volatile uint64_t *)dev_link,
>>> - old_link_u64, new_link_u64)) {
>>> - evq->sa->port.lsc_seq++;
>>> - break;
>>> - }
>>> - } while (B_TRUE);
>>> -
>>> - return B_FALSE;
>>> + evq->sa->port.lsc_seq++;
>>> + return B_TRUE;
>> It still returns B_TRUE, but should return B_FALSE as before.
>> Also before the patch lsc_seq is incremented in the case of any
>> changes in link status, but now in the case of up/down change only.
> The old code looked broken and did not match the comments.
> It always returned B_FALSE independent of whether link status changed
> or not.
Which comments does it not match?
Yes, because it is internal callback and return value is unrelated to link
status changes. Return value affects further events processing.
If B_TRUE is returned, it means something bad has happened and
events processing should be aborted.
More information about the dev
mailing list