[dpdk-stable] [EXT] patch 'crypto/octeontx2: fix multi-process' has been queued to stable release 19.11.6

[Ankur Dwivedi]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Luca Boccassi <bluca at debian.org>
>Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2020 4:37 PM
>To: Ankur Dwivedi <adwivedi at marvell.com>
>Cc: Anoob Joseph <anoobj at marvell.com>; dpdk stable <stable at dpdk.org>
>Subject: Re: [EXT] patch 'crypto/octeontx2: fix multi-process' has been queued
>to stable release 19.11.6
>
>On Tue, 2020-11-10 at 10:59 +0000, Ankur Dwivedi wrote:
>> Hi Luca,
>>
>> Please find my reply inline.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Ankur
>>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: luca.boccassi at gmail.com <luca.boccassi at gmail.com>
>> > Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2020 12:10 AM
>> > To: Ankur Dwivedi <adwivedi at marvell.com>
>> > Cc: Anoob Joseph <anoobj at marvell.com>; dpdk stable
><stable at dpdk.org>
>> > Subject: [EXT] patch 'crypto/octeontx2: fix multi-process' has been
>> > queued to stable release 19.11.6
>> >
>> > External Email
>> >
>> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > --
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > FYI, your patch has been queued to stable release 19.11.6
>> >
>> > Note it hasn't been pushed to
>> > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-
>> > 3A__dpdk.org_browse_dpdk-
>> >
>2Dstable&d=DwIDAg&c=nKjWec2b6R0mOyPaz7xtfQ&r=ILjiNF3GF25y6QdHZUx
>> >
>Ml6JrStU0MIuCtO5dMzn3Ybk&m=WJuhF88JRLbzAE2KFDm7fq_VKrRhCBfJ1zW
>> > 9-e8Y9Fs&s=mj0L_xoCfGbVaKeVCZRgKMCSRJvL_VQRL9Ukk60Oyk4&e=
>yet.
>> > It will be pushed if I get no objections before 11/11/20. So please
>> > shout if anyone has objections.
>> >
>> > Also note that after the patch there's a diff of the upstream commit
>> > vs the patch applied to the branch. This will indicate if there was
>> > any rebasing needed to apply to the stable branch. If there were
>> > code changes for rebasing
>> > (ie: not only metadata diffs), please double check that the rebase
>> > was correctly done.
>> >
>> > Queued patches are on a temporary branch at:
>> > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
>> > 3A__github.com_bluca_dpdk-
>> >
>2Dstable&d=DwIDAg&c=nKjWec2b6R0mOyPaz7xtfQ&r=ILjiNF3GF25y6QdHZUx
>> >
>Ml6JrStU0MIuCtO5dMzn3Ybk&m=WJuhF88JRLbzAE2KFDm7fq_VKrRhCBfJ1zW
>> > 9-e8Y9Fs&s=7RDdv-ig0gf-Ik31WdzFV8mldqC7ejjFz7eIIlkpPAo&e=
>> >
>> > This queued commit can be viewed at:
>> > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
>> > 3A__github.com_bluca_dpdk-
>> >
>2Dstable_commit_3415ca530b2ea4acdbc15b3c6eb4c4f4177a09dc&d=DwIDAg
>> >
>&c=nKjWec2b6R0mOyPaz7xtfQ&r=ILjiNF3GF25y6QdHZUxMl6JrStU0MIuCtO5d
>> > Mzn3Ybk&m=WJuhF88JRLbzAE2KFDm7fq_VKrRhCBfJ1zW9-
>> > e8Y9Fs&s=pEl2YmNRFwnSh57DYLWRaNYvL4ZiOMv_zTkzBlAsRo4&e=
>> >
>> > Thanks.
>> >
>> > Luca Boccassi
>> >
>> > ---
>> > From 3415ca530b2ea4acdbc15b3c6eb4c4f4177a09dc Mon Sep 17 00:00:00
>> > 2001
>> > From: Ankur Dwivedi <adwivedi at marvell.com>
>> > Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2020 13:20:00 +0530
>> > Subject: [PATCH] crypto/octeontx2: fix multi-process
>> >
>> > [ upstream commit 9fd11c1583c9b3249f49755b3216a79698e94700 ]
>> >
>> > During crypto device probe few functions should be called only for
>> > the primary process. This patch fixes this issue.
>> >
>> > Fixes: 818d138bcce9 ("crypto/octeontx2: add init sequence in probe")
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Ankur Dwivedi <adwivedi at marvell.com>
>> > Reviewed-by: Anoob Joseph <anoobj at marvell.com>
>> > ---
>> > drivers/crypto/octeontx2/otx2_cryptodev.c     | 49 +++++++++++--------
>> > drivers/crypto/octeontx2/otx2_cryptodev.h     |  2 +
>> > drivers/crypto/octeontx2/otx2_cryptodev_ops.c | 13 +++--
>> > 3 files changed, 40 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/drivers/crypto/octeontx2/otx2_cryptodev.c
>> > b/drivers/crypto/octeontx2/otx2_cryptodev.c
>> > index 417eda6de6..2323de1f60 100644
>> > --- a/drivers/crypto/octeontx2/otx2_cryptodev.c
>> > +++ b/drivers/crypto/octeontx2/otx2_cryptodev.c
>> > @@ -70,31 +70,34 @@ otx2_cpt_pci_probe(struct rte_pci_driver
>> > *pci_drv __rte_unused,
>> >
>> > 	otx2_dev = &vf->otx2_dev;
>> >
>> > -	/* Initialize the base otx2_dev object */
>> > -	ret = otx2_dev_init(pci_dev, otx2_dev);
>> > -	if (ret) {
>> > -		CPT_LOG_ERR("Could not initialize otx2_dev");
>> > -		goto pmd_destroy;
>> > -	}
>> > +	if (rte_eal_process_type() == RTE_PROC_PRIMARY) {
>> > +		/* Initialize the base otx2_dev object */
>> > +		ret = otx2_dev_init(pci_dev, otx2_dev);
>> > +		if (ret) {
>> > +			CPT_LOG_ERR("Could not initialize otx2_dev");
>> > +			goto pmd_destroy;
>> > +		}
>> >
>> > -	/* Get number of queues available on the device */
>> > -	ret = otx2_cpt_available_queues_get(dev, &nb_queues);
>> > -	if (ret) {
>> > -		CPT_LOG_ERR("Could not determine the number of queues
>> > available");
>> > -		goto otx2_dev_fini;
>> > -	}
>> > +		/* Get number of queues available on the device */
>> > +		ret = otx2_cpt_available_queues_get(dev, &nb_queues);
>> > +		if (ret) {
>> > +			CPT_LOG_ERR("Could not determine the number of
>> > queues available");
>> > +			goto otx2_dev_fini;
>> > +		}
>> >
>> > -	/* Don't exceed the limits set per VF */
>> > -	nb_queues = RTE_MIN(nb_queues,
>> > OTX2_CPT_MAX_QUEUES_PER_VF);
>> > +		/* Don't exceed the limits set per VF */
>> > +		nb_queues = RTE_MIN(nb_queues,
>> > OTX2_CPT_MAX_QUEUES_PER_VF);
>> >
>> > -	if (nb_queues == 0) {
>> > -		CPT_LOG_ERR("No free queues available on the device");
>> > -		goto otx2_dev_fini;
>> > -	}
>> > +		if (nb_queues == 0) {
>> > +			CPT_LOG_ERR("No free queues available on the
>> > device");
>> > +			goto otx2_dev_fini;
>> > +		}
>> >
>> > -	vf->max_queues = nb_queues;
>> > +		vf->max_queues = nb_queues;
>> >
>> > -	CPT_LOG_INFO("Max queues supported by device: %d", vf-
>> > > max_queues);
>> > +		CPT_LOG_INFO("Max queues supported by device: %d",
>> > +				vf->max_queues);
>> > +	}
>> >
>> > 	dev->feature_flags = RTE_CRYPTODEV_FF_SYMMETRIC_CRYPTO |
>> > 			     RTE_CRYPTODEV_FF_HW_ACCELERATED | @@ -
>> > 105,10 +108,14 @@ otx2_cpt_pci_probe(struct rte_pci_driver *pci_drv
>> > __rte_unused,
>> > 			     RTE_CRYPTODEV_FF_ASYMMETRIC_CRYPTO |
>> > 			     RTE_CRYPTODEV_FF_RSA_PRIV_OP_KEY_QT;
>> >
>> > +	if (rte_eal_process_type() == RTE_PROC_SECONDARY)
>> > +		otx2_cpt_set_enqdeq_fns(dev);
>> > +
>> > 	return 0;
>> >
>> > otx2_dev_fini:
>> > -	otx2_dev_fini(pci_dev, otx2_dev);
>> > +	if (rte_eal_process_type() == RTE_PROC_PRIMARY)
>> [Ankur] For 19.11 branch the above if check is not required as the
>otx2_dev_fini label is reached only by the primary process. For 20.11 branch
>the above if check was required but for 19.11 branch it is not required. So if its
>possible can you remove the if check during merging?
>
>As a generic process, I try to keep the diff from mainline as minimal as
>possible, as it makes the backporting process much simpler and smoother -
>more patches apply without changes.
Thanks for the information.
>
>Unless there's a specific reason to remove this (eg: it would break something if
>it's left in) I'd leave it as is.
No it does not break anything.  You can leave it as is.

Regards,
Ankur
>
>--
>Kind regards,
>Luca Boccassi