| Message ID | 20200320023153.48655-5-snelson@pensando.io |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted |
| Delegated to: | David Miller |
| Headers | show |
| Series | ionic error recovery fixes | expand |
On Thu, 19 Mar 2020 19:31:51 -0700 Shannon Nelson wrote: > Don't worry if the rx filter add firmware request fails on > EEXIST, at least we know the filter is there. Same for > the delete request, at least we know it isn't there. > > Fixes: 2a654540be10 ("ionic: Add Rx filter and rx_mode ndo support") > Signed-off-by: Shannon Nelson <snelson@pensando.io> Why could the filter be there? Seems like the FW shouldn't have filters the driver didn't add, could a flush/reset command help to start from clean state? Just curious.
On 3/19/20 8:43 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Thu, 19 Mar 2020 19:31:51 -0700 Shannon Nelson wrote: >> Don't worry if the rx filter add firmware request fails on >> EEXIST, at least we know the filter is there. Same for >> the delete request, at least we know it isn't there. >> >> Fixes: 2a654540be10 ("ionic: Add Rx filter and rx_mode ndo support") >> Signed-off-by: Shannon Nelson <snelson@pensando.io> > Why could the filter be there? Seems like the FW shouldn't have filters > the driver didn't add, could a flush/reset command help to start from > clean state? > > Just curious. Because there are use cases where the device is configured by an external centralized agent and may have already stuck the appropriate filters into the its list. sln
On Thu, 19 Mar 2020 22:21:35 -0700 Shannon Nelson wrote: > On 3/19/20 8:43 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > On Thu, 19 Mar 2020 19:31:51 -0700 Shannon Nelson wrote: > >> Don't worry if the rx filter add firmware request fails on > >> EEXIST, at least we know the filter is there. Same for > >> the delete request, at least we know it isn't there. > >> > >> Fixes: 2a654540be10 ("ionic: Add Rx filter and rx_mode ndo support") > >> Signed-off-by: Shannon Nelson <snelson@pensando.io> > > Why could the filter be there? Seems like the FW shouldn't have filters > > the driver didn't add, could a flush/reset command help to start from > > clean state? > > > > Just curious. > Because there are use cases where the device is configured by an > external centralized agent and may have already stuck the appropriate > filters into the its list. Thanks, seems a little leaky for the host to be able to probe the state installed by the agent, but it does explain the need.
diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/pensando/ionic/ionic_lif.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/pensando/ionic/ionic_lif.c index c62d3d01d5aa..ea44f510cb76 100644 --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/pensando/ionic/ionic_lif.c +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/pensando/ionic/ionic_lif.c @@ -832,7 +832,7 @@ static int ionic_lif_addr_add(struct ionic_lif *lif, const u8 *addr) memcpy(ctx.cmd.rx_filter_add.mac.addr, addr, ETH_ALEN); err = ionic_adminq_post_wait(lif, &ctx); - if (err) + if (err && err != -EEXIST) return err; return ionic_rx_filter_save(lif, 0, IONIC_RXQ_INDEX_ANY, 0, &ctx); @@ -862,7 +862,7 @@ static int ionic_lif_addr_del(struct ionic_lif *lif, const u8 *addr) spin_unlock_bh(&lif->rx_filters.lock); err = ionic_adminq_post_wait(lif, &ctx); - if (err) + if (err && err != -EEXIST) return err; netdev_dbg(lif->netdev, "rx_filter del ADDR %pM (id %d)\n", addr,
Don't worry if the rx filter add firmware request fails on EEXIST, at least we know the filter is there. Same for the delete request, at least we know it isn't there. Fixes: 2a654540be10 ("ionic: Add Rx filter and rx_mode ndo support") Signed-off-by: Shannon Nelson <snelson@pensando.io> --- drivers/net/ethernet/pensando/ionic/ionic_lif.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)