[PATCH for-rc] RDMA/bnxt_re: Honor vlan_id in GID entry comparison

[PATCH for-rc] RDMA/bnxt_re: Honor vlan_id in GID entry comparison

[Selvin Xavier]

GID entry consist of GID, vlan, netdev and smac.
Extend GID duplicate check companions to consider vlan_id as well
to support IPv6 VLAN based link local addresses. Introduce
a new structure (bnxt_qplib_gid_info) to hold gid and vlan_id information.

The issue is discussed in the following thread
https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-rdma/msg81594.html

Fixes: 823b23da7113 ("IB/core: Allow vlan link local address based RoCE GIDs")
Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> # v5.2+
Reported-by: Yi Zhang <yi.zhang@redhat.com>
Co-developed-by: Parav Pandit <parav@mellanox.com>
Signed-off-by: Parav Pandit <parav@mellanox.com>
Signed-off-by: Selvin Xavier <selvin.xavier@broadcom.com>
---
 drivers/infiniband/hw/bnxt_re/ib_verbs.c  |  7 +++++--
 drivers/infiniband/hw/bnxt_re/qplib_res.c | 13 +++++++++----
 drivers/infiniband/hw/bnxt_re/qplib_res.h |  2 +-
 drivers/infiniband/hw/bnxt_re/qplib_sp.c  | 14 +++++++++-----
 drivers/infiniband/hw/bnxt_re/qplib_sp.h  |  7 ++++++-
 5 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/hw/bnxt_re/ib_verbs.c b/drivers/infiniband/hw/bnxt_re/ib_verbs.c
index 2c3685faa57a..a4a9f90f2482 100644
--- a/drivers/infiniband/hw/bnxt_re/ib_verbs.c
+++ b/drivers/infiniband/hw/bnxt_re/ib_verbs.c
@@ -308,6 +308,7 @@ int bnxt_re_del_gid(const struct ib_gid_attr *attr, void **context)
 	struct bnxt_re_dev *rdev = to_bnxt_re_dev(attr->device, ibdev);
 	struct bnxt_qplib_sgid_tbl *sgid_tbl = &rdev->qplib_res.sgid_tbl;
 	struct bnxt_qplib_gid *gid_to_del;
+	u16 vlan_id = 0xFFFF;
 
 	/* Delete the entry from the hardware */
 	ctx = *context;
@@ -317,7 +318,8 @@ int bnxt_re_del_gid(const struct ib_gid_attr *attr, void **context)
 	if (sgid_tbl && sgid_tbl->active) {
 		if (ctx->idx >= sgid_tbl->max)
 			return -EINVAL;
-		gid_to_del = &sgid_tbl->tbl[ctx->idx];
+		gid_to_del = &sgid_tbl->tbl[ctx->idx].gid;
+		vlan_id = sgid_tbl->tbl[ctx->idx].vlan_id;
 		/* DEL_GID is called in WQ context(netdevice_event_work_handler)
 		 * or via the ib_unregister_device path. In the former case QP1
 		 * may not be destroyed yet, in which case just return as FW
@@ -335,7 +337,8 @@ int bnxt_re_del_gid(const struct ib_gid_attr *attr, void **context)
 		}
 		ctx->refcnt--;
 		if (!ctx->refcnt) {
-			rc = bnxt_qplib_del_sgid(sgid_tbl, gid_to_del, true);
+			rc = bnxt_qplib_del_sgid(sgid_tbl, gid_to_del,
+						 vlan_id,  true);
 			if (rc) {
 				dev_err(rdev_to_dev(rdev),
 					"Failed to remove GID: %#x", rc);
diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/hw/bnxt_re/qplib_res.c b/drivers/infiniband/hw/bnxt_re/qplib_res.c
index 37928b1111df..bdbde8e22420 100644
--- a/drivers/infiniband/hw/bnxt_re/qplib_res.c
+++ b/drivers/infiniband/hw/bnxt_re/qplib_res.c
@@ -488,7 +488,7 @@ static int bnxt_qplib_alloc_sgid_tbl(struct bnxt_qplib_res *res,
 				     struct bnxt_qplib_sgid_tbl *sgid_tbl,
 				     u16 max)
 {
-	sgid_tbl->tbl = kcalloc(max, sizeof(struct bnxt_qplib_gid), GFP_KERNEL);
+	sgid_tbl->tbl = kcalloc(max, sizeof(*sgid_tbl->tbl), GFP_KERNEL);
 	if (!sgid_tbl->tbl)
 		return -ENOMEM;
 
@@ -526,9 +526,10 @@ static void bnxt_qplib_cleanup_sgid_tbl(struct bnxt_qplib_res *res,
 	for (i = 0; i < sgid_tbl->max; i++) {
 		if (memcmp(&sgid_tbl->tbl[i], &bnxt_qplib_gid_zero,
 			   sizeof(bnxt_qplib_gid_zero)))
-			bnxt_qplib_del_sgid(sgid_tbl, &sgid_tbl->tbl[i], true);
+			bnxt_qplib_del_sgid(sgid_tbl, &sgid_tbl->tbl[i].gid,
+					    sgid_tbl->tbl[i].vlan_id, true);
 	}
-	memset(sgid_tbl->tbl, 0, sizeof(struct bnxt_qplib_gid) * sgid_tbl->max);
+	memset(sgid_tbl->tbl, 0, sizeof(*sgid_tbl->tbl) * sgid_tbl->max);
 	memset(sgid_tbl->hw_id, -1, sizeof(u16) * sgid_tbl->max);
 	memset(sgid_tbl->vlan, 0, sizeof(u8) * sgid_tbl->max);
 	sgid_tbl->active = 0;
@@ -537,7 +538,11 @@ static void bnxt_qplib_cleanup_sgid_tbl(struct bnxt_qplib_res *res,
 static void bnxt_qplib_init_sgid_tbl(struct bnxt_qplib_sgid_tbl *sgid_tbl,
 				     struct net_device *netdev)
 {
-	memset(sgid_tbl->tbl, 0, sizeof(struct bnxt_qplib_gid) * sgid_tbl->max);
+	u32 i;
+
+	for (i = 0; i < sgid_tbl->max; i++)
+		sgid_tbl->tbl[i].vlan_id = 0xffff;
+
 	memset(sgid_tbl->hw_id, -1, sizeof(u16) * sgid_tbl->max);
 }
 
diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/hw/bnxt_re/qplib_res.h b/drivers/infiniband/hw/bnxt_re/qplib_res.h
index 30c42c92fac7..fbda11a7ab1a 100644
--- a/drivers/infiniband/hw/bnxt_re/qplib_res.h
+++ b/drivers/infiniband/hw/bnxt_re/qplib_res.h
@@ -111,7 +111,7 @@ struct bnxt_qplib_pd_tbl {
 };
 
 struct bnxt_qplib_sgid_tbl {
-	struct bnxt_qplib_gid		*tbl;
+	struct bnxt_qplib_gid_info	*tbl;
 	u16				*hw_id;
 	u16				max;
 	u16				active;
diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/hw/bnxt_re/qplib_sp.c b/drivers/infiniband/hw/bnxt_re/qplib_sp.c
index 48793d3512ac..40296b97d21e 100644
--- a/drivers/infiniband/hw/bnxt_re/qplib_sp.c
+++ b/drivers/infiniband/hw/bnxt_re/qplib_sp.c
@@ -213,12 +213,12 @@ int bnxt_qplib_get_sgid(struct bnxt_qplib_res *res,
 			index, sgid_tbl->max);
 		return -EINVAL;
 	}
-	memcpy(gid, &sgid_tbl->tbl[index], sizeof(*gid));
+	memcpy(gid, &sgid_tbl->tbl[index].gid, sizeof(*gid));
 	return 0;
 }
 
 int bnxt_qplib_del_sgid(struct bnxt_qplib_sgid_tbl *sgid_tbl,
-			struct bnxt_qplib_gid *gid, bool update)
+			struct bnxt_qplib_gid *gid, u16 vlan_id, bool update)
 {
 	struct bnxt_qplib_res *res = to_bnxt_qplib(sgid_tbl,
 						   struct bnxt_qplib_res,
@@ -236,7 +236,8 @@ int bnxt_qplib_del_sgid(struct bnxt_qplib_sgid_tbl *sgid_tbl,
 		return -ENOMEM;
 	}
 	for (index = 0; index < sgid_tbl->max; index++) {
-		if (!memcmp(&sgid_tbl->tbl[index], gid, sizeof(*gid)))
+		if (!memcmp(&sgid_tbl->tbl[index].gid, gid, sizeof(*gid)) &&
+		    vlan_id == sgid_tbl->tbl[index].vlan_id)
 			break;
 	}
 	if (index == sgid_tbl->max) {
@@ -262,8 +263,9 @@ int bnxt_qplib_del_sgid(struct bnxt_qplib_sgid_tbl *sgid_tbl,
 		if (rc)
 			return rc;
 	}
-	memcpy(&sgid_tbl->tbl[index], &bnxt_qplib_gid_zero,
+	memcpy(&sgid_tbl->tbl[index].gid, &bnxt_qplib_gid_zero,
 	       sizeof(bnxt_qplib_gid_zero));
+	sgid_tbl->tbl[index].vlan_id = 0xFFFF;
 	sgid_tbl->vlan[index] = 0;
 	sgid_tbl->active--;
 	dev_dbg(&res->pdev->dev,
@@ -296,7 +298,8 @@ int bnxt_qplib_add_sgid(struct bnxt_qplib_sgid_tbl *sgid_tbl,
 	}
 	free_idx = sgid_tbl->max;
 	for (i = 0; i < sgid_tbl->max; i++) {
-		if (!memcmp(&sgid_tbl->tbl[i], gid, sizeof(*gid))) {
+		if (!memcmp(&sgid_tbl->tbl[i], gid, sizeof(*gid)) &&
+		    sgid_tbl->tbl[i].vlan_id == vlan_id) {
 			dev_dbg(&res->pdev->dev,
 				"SGID entry already exist in entry %d!\n", i);
 			*index = i;
@@ -351,6 +354,7 @@ int bnxt_qplib_add_sgid(struct bnxt_qplib_sgid_tbl *sgid_tbl,
 	}
 	/* Add GID to the sgid_tbl */
 	memcpy(&sgid_tbl->tbl[free_idx], gid, sizeof(*gid));
+	sgid_tbl->tbl[free_idx].vlan_id = vlan_id;
 	sgid_tbl->active++;
 	if (vlan_id != 0xFFFF)
 		sgid_tbl->vlan[free_idx] = 1;
diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/hw/bnxt_re/qplib_sp.h b/drivers/infiniband/hw/bnxt_re/qplib_sp.h
index 0ec3b12b0bcd..13d9432d5ce2 100644
--- a/drivers/infiniband/hw/bnxt_re/qplib_sp.h
+++ b/drivers/infiniband/hw/bnxt_re/qplib_sp.h
@@ -84,6 +84,11 @@ struct bnxt_qplib_gid {
 	u8				data[16];
 };
 
+struct bnxt_qplib_gid_info {
+	struct bnxt_qplib_gid gid;
+	u16 vlan_id;
+};
+
 struct bnxt_qplib_ah {
 	struct bnxt_qplib_gid		dgid;
 	struct bnxt_qplib_pd		*pd;
@@ -221,7 +226,7 @@ int bnxt_qplib_get_sgid(struct bnxt_qplib_res *res,
 			struct bnxt_qplib_sgid_tbl *sgid_tbl, int index,
 			struct bnxt_qplib_gid *gid);
 int bnxt_qplib_del_sgid(struct bnxt_qplib_sgid_tbl *sgid_tbl,
-			struct bnxt_qplib_gid *gid, bool update);
+			struct bnxt_qplib_gid *gid, u16 vlan_id, bool update);
 int bnxt_qplib_add_sgid(struct bnxt_qplib_sgid_tbl *sgid_tbl,
 			struct bnxt_qplib_gid *gid, u8 *mac, u16 vlan_id,
 			bool update, u32 *index);
-- 
2.18.1

Re: [PATCH for-rc] RDMA/bnxt_re: Honor vlan_id in GID entry comparison

[Yi Zhang]

Verified this patch on my nvme rdma bnxt_re environment, thanks.

Tested-by: Yi Zhang <yi.zhang@redhat.com>

On 7/15/19 5:19 PM, Selvin Xavier wrote:
> GID entry consist of GID, vlan, netdev and smac.
> Extend GID duplicate check companions to consider vlan_id as well
> to support IPv6 VLAN based link local addresses. Introduce
> a new structure (bnxt_qplib_gid_info) to hold gid and vlan_id information.
>
> The issue is discussed in the following thread
> https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-rdma/msg81594.html
>
> Fixes: 823b23da7113 ("IB/core: Allow vlan link local address based RoCE GIDs")
> Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> # v5.2+
> Reported-by: Yi Zhang <yi.zhang@redhat.com>
> Co-developed-by: Parav Pandit <parav@mellanox.com>
> Signed-off-by: Parav Pandit <parav@mellanox.com>
> Signed-off-by: Selvin Xavier <selvin.xavier@broadcom.com>
> ---
>   drivers/infiniband/hw/bnxt_re/ib_verbs.c  |  7 +++++--
>   drivers/infiniband/hw/bnxt_re/qplib_res.c | 13 +++++++++----
>   drivers/infiniband/hw/bnxt_re/qplib_res.h |  2 +-
>   drivers/infiniband/hw/bnxt_re/qplib_sp.c  | 14 +++++++++-----
>   drivers/infiniband/hw/bnxt_re/qplib_sp.h  |  7 ++++++-
>   5 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/hw/bnxt_re/ib_verbs.c b/drivers/infiniband/hw/bnxt_re/ib_verbs.c
> index 2c3685faa57a..a4a9f90f2482 100644
> --- a/drivers/infiniband/hw/bnxt_re/ib_verbs.c
> +++ b/drivers/infiniband/hw/bnxt_re/ib_verbs.c
> @@ -308,6 +308,7 @@ int bnxt_re_del_gid(const struct ib_gid_attr *attr, void **context)
>   	struct bnxt_re_dev *rdev = to_bnxt_re_dev(attr->device, ibdev);
>   	struct bnxt_qplib_sgid_tbl *sgid_tbl = &rdev->qplib_res.sgid_tbl;
>   	struct bnxt_qplib_gid *gid_to_del;
> +	u16 vlan_id = 0xFFFF;
>   
>   	/* Delete the entry from the hardware */
>   	ctx = *context;
> @@ -317,7 +318,8 @@ int bnxt_re_del_gid(const struct ib_gid_attr *attr, void **context)
>   	if (sgid_tbl && sgid_tbl->active) {
>   		if (ctx->idx >= sgid_tbl->max)
>   			return -EINVAL;
> -		gid_to_del = &sgid_tbl->tbl[ctx->idx];
> +		gid_to_del = &sgid_tbl->tbl[ctx->idx].gid;
> +		vlan_id = sgid_tbl->tbl[ctx->idx].vlan_id;
>   		/* DEL_GID is called in WQ context(netdevice_event_work_handler)
>   		 * or via the ib_unregister_device path. In the former case QP1
>   		 * may not be destroyed yet, in which case just return as FW
> @@ -335,7 +337,8 @@ int bnxt_re_del_gid(const struct ib_gid_attr *attr, void **context)
>   		}
>   		ctx->refcnt--;
>   		if (!ctx->refcnt) {
> -			rc = bnxt_qplib_del_sgid(sgid_tbl, gid_to_del, true);
> +			rc = bnxt_qplib_del_sgid(sgid_tbl, gid_to_del,
> +						 vlan_id,  true);
>   			if (rc) {
>   				dev_err(rdev_to_dev(rdev),
>   					"Failed to remove GID: %#x", rc);
> diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/hw/bnxt_re/qplib_res.c b/drivers/infiniband/hw/bnxt_re/qplib_res.c
> index 37928b1111df..bdbde8e22420 100644
> --- a/drivers/infiniband/hw/bnxt_re/qplib_res.c
> +++ b/drivers/infiniband/hw/bnxt_re/qplib_res.c
> @@ -488,7 +488,7 @@ static int bnxt_qplib_alloc_sgid_tbl(struct bnxt_qplib_res *res,
>   				     struct bnxt_qplib_sgid_tbl *sgid_tbl,
>   				     u16 max)
>   {
> -	sgid_tbl->tbl = kcalloc(max, sizeof(struct bnxt_qplib_gid), GFP_KERNEL);
> +	sgid_tbl->tbl = kcalloc(max, sizeof(*sgid_tbl->tbl), GFP_KERNEL);
>   	if (!sgid_tbl->tbl)
>   		return -ENOMEM;
>   
> @@ -526,9 +526,10 @@ static void bnxt_qplib_cleanup_sgid_tbl(struct bnxt_qplib_res *res,
>   	for (i = 0; i < sgid_tbl->max; i++) {
>   		if (memcmp(&sgid_tbl->tbl[i], &bnxt_qplib_gid_zero,
>   			   sizeof(bnxt_qplib_gid_zero)))
> -			bnxt_qplib_del_sgid(sgid_tbl, &sgid_tbl->tbl[i], true);
> +			bnxt_qplib_del_sgid(sgid_tbl, &sgid_tbl->tbl[i].gid,
> +					    sgid_tbl->tbl[i].vlan_id, true);
>   	}
> -	memset(sgid_tbl->tbl, 0, sizeof(struct bnxt_qplib_gid) * sgid_tbl->max);
> +	memset(sgid_tbl->tbl, 0, sizeof(*sgid_tbl->tbl) * sgid_tbl->max);
>   	memset(sgid_tbl->hw_id, -1, sizeof(u16) * sgid_tbl->max);
>   	memset(sgid_tbl->vlan, 0, sizeof(u8) * sgid_tbl->max);
>   	sgid_tbl->active = 0;
> @@ -537,7 +538,11 @@ static void bnxt_qplib_cleanup_sgid_tbl(struct bnxt_qplib_res *res,
>   static void bnxt_qplib_init_sgid_tbl(struct bnxt_qplib_sgid_tbl *sgid_tbl,
>   				     struct net_device *netdev)
>   {
> -	memset(sgid_tbl->tbl, 0, sizeof(struct bnxt_qplib_gid) * sgid_tbl->max);
> +	u32 i;
> +
> +	for (i = 0; i < sgid_tbl->max; i++)
> +		sgid_tbl->tbl[i].vlan_id = 0xffff;
> +
>   	memset(sgid_tbl->hw_id, -1, sizeof(u16) * sgid_tbl->max);
>   }
>   
> diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/hw/bnxt_re/qplib_res.h b/drivers/infiniband/hw/bnxt_re/qplib_res.h
> index 30c42c92fac7..fbda11a7ab1a 100644
> --- a/drivers/infiniband/hw/bnxt_re/qplib_res.h
> +++ b/drivers/infiniband/hw/bnxt_re/qplib_res.h
> @@ -111,7 +111,7 @@ struct bnxt_qplib_pd_tbl {
>   };
>   
>   struct bnxt_qplib_sgid_tbl {
> -	struct bnxt_qplib_gid		*tbl;
> +	struct bnxt_qplib_gid_info	*tbl;
>   	u16				*hw_id;
>   	u16				max;
>   	u16				active;
> diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/hw/bnxt_re/qplib_sp.c b/drivers/infiniband/hw/bnxt_re/qplib_sp.c
> index 48793d3512ac..40296b97d21e 100644
> --- a/drivers/infiniband/hw/bnxt_re/qplib_sp.c
> +++ b/drivers/infiniband/hw/bnxt_re/qplib_sp.c
> @@ -213,12 +213,12 @@ int bnxt_qplib_get_sgid(struct bnxt_qplib_res *res,
>   			index, sgid_tbl->max);
>   		return -EINVAL;
>   	}
> -	memcpy(gid, &sgid_tbl->tbl[index], sizeof(*gid));
> +	memcpy(gid, &sgid_tbl->tbl[index].gid, sizeof(*gid));
>   	return 0;
>   }
>   
>   int bnxt_qplib_del_sgid(struct bnxt_qplib_sgid_tbl *sgid_tbl,
> -			struct bnxt_qplib_gid *gid, bool update)
> +			struct bnxt_qplib_gid *gid, u16 vlan_id, bool update)
>   {
>   	struct bnxt_qplib_res *res = to_bnxt_qplib(sgid_tbl,
>   						   struct bnxt_qplib_res,
> @@ -236,7 +236,8 @@ int bnxt_qplib_del_sgid(struct bnxt_qplib_sgid_tbl *sgid_tbl,
>   		return -ENOMEM;
>   	}
>   	for (index = 0; index < sgid_tbl->max; index++) {
> -		if (!memcmp(&sgid_tbl->tbl[index], gid, sizeof(*gid)))
> +		if (!memcmp(&sgid_tbl->tbl[index].gid, gid, sizeof(*gid)) &&
> +		    vlan_id == sgid_tbl->tbl[index].vlan_id)
>   			break;
>   	}
>   	if (index == sgid_tbl->max) {
> @@ -262,8 +263,9 @@ int bnxt_qplib_del_sgid(struct bnxt_qplib_sgid_tbl *sgid_tbl,
>   		if (rc)
>   			return rc;
>   	}
> -	memcpy(&sgid_tbl->tbl[index], &bnxt_qplib_gid_zero,
> +	memcpy(&sgid_tbl->tbl[index].gid, &bnxt_qplib_gid_zero,
>   	       sizeof(bnxt_qplib_gid_zero));
> +	sgid_tbl->tbl[index].vlan_id = 0xFFFF;
>   	sgid_tbl->vlan[index] = 0;
>   	sgid_tbl->active--;
>   	dev_dbg(&res->pdev->dev,
> @@ -296,7 +298,8 @@ int bnxt_qplib_add_sgid(struct bnxt_qplib_sgid_tbl *sgid_tbl,
>   	}
>   	free_idx = sgid_tbl->max;
>   	for (i = 0; i < sgid_tbl->max; i++) {
> -		if (!memcmp(&sgid_tbl->tbl[i], gid, sizeof(*gid))) {
> +		if (!memcmp(&sgid_tbl->tbl[i], gid, sizeof(*gid)) &&
> +		    sgid_tbl->tbl[i].vlan_id == vlan_id) {
>   			dev_dbg(&res->pdev->dev,
>   				"SGID entry already exist in entry %d!\n", i);
>   			*index = i;
> @@ -351,6 +354,7 @@ int bnxt_qplib_add_sgid(struct bnxt_qplib_sgid_tbl *sgid_tbl,
>   	}
>   	/* Add GID to the sgid_tbl */
>   	memcpy(&sgid_tbl->tbl[free_idx], gid, sizeof(*gid));
> +	sgid_tbl->tbl[free_idx].vlan_id = vlan_id;
>   	sgid_tbl->active++;
>   	if (vlan_id != 0xFFFF)
>   		sgid_tbl->vlan[free_idx] = 1;
> diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/hw/bnxt_re/qplib_sp.h b/drivers/infiniband/hw/bnxt_re/qplib_sp.h
> index 0ec3b12b0bcd..13d9432d5ce2 100644
> --- a/drivers/infiniband/hw/bnxt_re/qplib_sp.h
> +++ b/drivers/infiniband/hw/bnxt_re/qplib_sp.h
> @@ -84,6 +84,11 @@ struct bnxt_qplib_gid {
>   	u8				data[16];
>   };
>   
> +struct bnxt_qplib_gid_info {
> +	struct bnxt_qplib_gid gid;
> +	u16 vlan_id;
> +};
> +
>   struct bnxt_qplib_ah {
>   	struct bnxt_qplib_gid		dgid;
>   	struct bnxt_qplib_pd		*pd;
> @@ -221,7 +226,7 @@ int bnxt_qplib_get_sgid(struct bnxt_qplib_res *res,
>   			struct bnxt_qplib_sgid_tbl *sgid_tbl, int index,
>   			struct bnxt_qplib_gid *gid);
>   int bnxt_qplib_del_sgid(struct bnxt_qplib_sgid_tbl *sgid_tbl,
> -			struct bnxt_qplib_gid *gid, bool update);
> +			struct bnxt_qplib_gid *gid, u16 vlan_id, bool update);
>   int bnxt_qplib_add_sgid(struct bnxt_qplib_sgid_tbl *sgid_tbl,
>   			struct bnxt_qplib_gid *gid, u8 *mac, u16 vlan_id,
>   			bool update, u32 *index);

Re: [PATCH for-rc] RDMA/bnxt_re: Honor vlan_id in GID entry comparison

[Leon Romanovsky]

On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 05:19:13AM -0400, Selvin Xavier wrote:
> GID entry consist of GID, vlan, netdev and smac.
> Extend GID duplicate check companions to consider vlan_id as well
> to support IPv6 VLAN based link local addresses. Introduce
> a new structure (bnxt_qplib_gid_info) to hold gid and vlan_id information.
>
> The issue is discussed in the following thread
> https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-rdma/msg81594.html
>
> Fixes: 823b23da7113 ("IB/core: Allow vlan link local address based RoCE GIDs")
> Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> # v5.2+
> Reported-by: Yi Zhang <yi.zhang@redhat.com>

> Co-developed-by: Parav Pandit <parav@mellanox.com>
> Signed-off-by: Parav Pandit <parav@mellanox.com>

I never understood why bad habits are so stinky.

Can you please explain us what does it mean Co-developed-by and
Signed-off-by of the same person in the same patch?

> Signed-off-by: Selvin Xavier <selvin.xavier@broadcom.com>
> ---

Thanks

Re: [PATCH for-rc] RDMA/bnxt_re: Honor vlan_id in GID entry comparison

[Greg KH]

On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 10:10:30AM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 05:19:13AM -0400, Selvin Xavier wrote:
> > GID entry consist of GID, vlan, netdev and smac.
> > Extend GID duplicate check companions to consider vlan_id as well
> > to support IPv6 VLAN based link local addresses. Introduce
> > a new structure (bnxt_qplib_gid_info) to hold gid and vlan_id information.
> >
> > The issue is discussed in the following thread
> > https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-rdma/msg81594.html
> >
> > Fixes: 823b23da7113 ("IB/core: Allow vlan link local address based RoCE GIDs")
> > Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> # v5.2+
> > Reported-by: Yi Zhang <yi.zhang@redhat.com>
> 
> > Co-developed-by: Parav Pandit <parav@mellanox.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Parav Pandit <parav@mellanox.com>
> 
> I never understood why bad habits are so stinky.
> 
> Can you please explain us what does it mean Co-developed-by and
> Signed-off-by of the same person in the same patch?

See Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst for what that tag
means.

thanks,

greg k-h

Re: [PATCH for-rc] RDMA/bnxt_re: Honor vlan_id in GID entry comparison

[Leon Romanovsky]

On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 04:16:44PM +0900, Greg KH wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 10:10:30AM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 05:19:13AM -0400, Selvin Xavier wrote:
> > > GID entry consist of GID, vlan, netdev and smac.
> > > Extend GID duplicate check companions to consider vlan_id as well
> > > to support IPv6 VLAN based link local addresses. Introduce
> > > a new structure (bnxt_qplib_gid_info) to hold gid and vlan_id information.
> > >
> > > The issue is discussed in the following thread
> > > https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-rdma/msg81594.html
> > >
> > > Fixes: 823b23da7113 ("IB/core: Allow vlan link local address based RoCE GIDs")
> > > Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> # v5.2+
> > > Reported-by: Yi Zhang <yi.zhang@redhat.com>
> >
> > > Co-developed-by: Parav Pandit <parav@mellanox.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Parav Pandit <parav@mellanox.com>
> >
> > I never understood why bad habits are so stinky.
> >
> > Can you please explain us what does it mean Co-developed-by and
> > Signed-off-by of the same person in the same patch?
>
> See Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst for what that tag
> means.

Read it, it doesn't help me to understand if I should now add
Co-developed-by tag to most of RDMA Mellanox upstreamed patches,
which already care my Signed-off-by, because I'm changing and fixing
them many times.

Maybe I should write for my upstreamed patched something like this?
Co-developed-by: Leon R...
Reviewed-By: Leon R...
Tested-by: Leon R...
Signed-by: Leon R...

Thanks

>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h

Re: [PATCH for-rc] RDMA/bnxt_re: Honor vlan_id in GID entry comparison

[Greg KH]

On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 11:41:26AM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 04:16:44PM +0900, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 10:10:30AM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 05:19:13AM -0400, Selvin Xavier wrote:
> > > > GID entry consist of GID, vlan, netdev and smac.
> > > > Extend GID duplicate check companions to consider vlan_id as well
> > > > to support IPv6 VLAN based link local addresses. Introduce
> > > > a new structure (bnxt_qplib_gid_info) to hold gid and vlan_id information.
> > > >
> > > > The issue is discussed in the following thread
> > > > https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-rdma/msg81594.html
> > > >
> > > > Fixes: 823b23da7113 ("IB/core: Allow vlan link local address based RoCE GIDs")
> > > > Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> # v5.2+
> > > > Reported-by: Yi Zhang <yi.zhang@redhat.com>
> > >
> > > > Co-developed-by: Parav Pandit <parav@mellanox.com>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Parav Pandit <parav@mellanox.com>
> > >
> > > I never understood why bad habits are so stinky.
> > >
> > > Can you please explain us what does it mean Co-developed-by and
> > > Signed-off-by of the same person in the same patch?
> >
> > See Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst for what that tag
> > means.
> 
> Read it, it doesn't help me to understand if I should now add
> Co-developed-by tag to most of RDMA Mellanox upstreamed patches,
> which already care my Signed-off-by, because I'm changing and fixing
> them many times.

It depends, it's your call, if you think you deserve the credit, sure,
add it.  If you are just doing basic "review" where you tell people what
needs to be done better, that's probably not what you need to do here.

One example, where I just added myself to a patch happened last week
where the developer submitted one solution, I took it and rewrote the
whole implementation (from raw kobjects to using the driver model).  The
original author got the "From:" and I got a Co-developed-by line.

Does that help?

thanks,

greg k-h

Re: [PATCH for-rc] RDMA/bnxt_re: Honor vlan_id in GID entry comparison

[Leon Romanovsky]

On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 06:09:17PM +0900, Greg KH wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 11:41:26AM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 04:16:44PM +0900, Greg KH wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 10:10:30AM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 05:19:13AM -0400, Selvin Xavier wrote:
> > > > > GID entry consist of GID, vlan, netdev and smac.
> > > > > Extend GID duplicate check companions to consider vlan_id as well
> > > > > to support IPv6 VLAN based link local addresses. Introduce
> > > > > a new structure (bnxt_qplib_gid_info) to hold gid and vlan_id information.
> > > > >
> > > > > The issue is discussed in the following thread
> > > > > https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-rdma/msg81594.html
> > > > >
> > > > > Fixes: 823b23da7113 ("IB/core: Allow vlan link local address based RoCE GIDs")
> > > > > Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> # v5.2+
> > > > > Reported-by: Yi Zhang <yi.zhang@redhat.com>
> > > >
> > > > > Co-developed-by: Parav Pandit <parav@mellanox.com>
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Parav Pandit <parav@mellanox.com>
> > > >
> > > > I never understood why bad habits are so stinky.
> > > >
> > > > Can you please explain us what does it mean Co-developed-by and
> > > > Signed-off-by of the same person in the same patch?
> > >
> > > See Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst for what that tag
> > > means.
> >
> > Read it, it doesn't help me to understand if I should now add
> > Co-developed-by tag to most of RDMA Mellanox upstreamed patches,
> > which already care my Signed-off-by, because I'm changing and fixing
> > them many times.
>
> It depends, it's your call, if you think you deserve the credit, sure,
> add it.  If you are just doing basic "review" where you tell people what
> needs to be done better, that's probably not what you need to do here.

I'll probably not use this and not because I don't deserve credit, but
because it looks ridiculously to me to see my name repeated N times for
my work.

>
> One example, where I just added myself to a patch happened last week
> where the developer submitted one solution, I took it and rewrote the
> whole implementation (from raw kobjects to using the driver model).  The
> original author got the "From:" and I got a Co-developed-by line.

In old days, we simply changed Author field if changes were above some
arbitrary threshold (usually half of the original patch) and added SOB.

Why wasn't this approach enough?

>
> Does that help?

Yes, and it makes me wonder when we will need to hire compliance officer
who will review all our upstreamed patches to comply with more and more
bureaucracy.

Thanks.

>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h

Re: [PATCH for-rc] RDMA/bnxt_re: Honor vlan_id in GID entry comparison

[Greg KH]

On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 12:50:07PM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 06:09:17PM +0900, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 11:41:26AM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 04:16:44PM +0900, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 10:10:30AM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 05:19:13AM -0400, Selvin Xavier wrote:
> > > > > > GID entry consist of GID, vlan, netdev and smac.
> > > > > > Extend GID duplicate check companions to consider vlan_id as well
> > > > > > to support IPv6 VLAN based link local addresses. Introduce
> > > > > > a new structure (bnxt_qplib_gid_info) to hold gid and vlan_id information.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The issue is discussed in the following thread
> > > > > > https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-rdma/msg81594.html
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Fixes: 823b23da7113 ("IB/core: Allow vlan link local address based RoCE GIDs")
> > > > > > Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> # v5.2+
> > > > > > Reported-by: Yi Zhang <yi.zhang@redhat.com>
> > > > >
> > > > > > Co-developed-by: Parav Pandit <parav@mellanox.com>
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Parav Pandit <parav@mellanox.com>
> > > > >
> > > > > I never understood why bad habits are so stinky.
> > > > >
> > > > > Can you please explain us what does it mean Co-developed-by and
> > > > > Signed-off-by of the same person in the same patch?
> > > >
> > > > See Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst for what that tag
> > > > means.
> > >
> > > Read it, it doesn't help me to understand if I should now add
> > > Co-developed-by tag to most of RDMA Mellanox upstreamed patches,
> > > which already care my Signed-off-by, because I'm changing and fixing
> > > them many times.
> >
> > It depends, it's your call, if you think you deserve the credit, sure,
> > add it.  If you are just doing basic "review" where you tell people what
> > needs to be done better, that's probably not what you need to do here.
> 
> I'll probably not use this and not because I don't deserve credit, but
> because it looks ridiculously to me to see my name repeated N times for
> my work.

That's up to you, and your fellow co-authors to decide.

> > One example, where I just added myself to a patch happened last week
> > where the developer submitted one solution, I took it and rewrote the
> > whole implementation (from raw kobjects to using the driver model).  The
> > original author got the "From:" and I got a Co-developed-by line.
> 
> In old days, we simply changed Author field if changes were above some
> arbitrary threshold (usually half of the original patch) and added SOB.
> 
> Why wasn't this approach enough?

Because we have had some patches where it really was a work of multiple
people and it is good to show the correct authorship wherever possible.

If you look, this tag was added based on a document in the kernel tree
that Thomas and I worked on together and we both wanted the "blame" for
it :)

> > Does that help?
> 
> Yes, and it makes me wonder when we will need to hire compliance officer
> who will review all our upstreamed patches to comply with more and more
> bureaucracy.

Oh come on, this is about the ability to give people credit where they
did not have it before.  It's not about being "compliant", it's about
being "nice" and "fair".  Something that no one should complain about.

There is no one forcing you to add this tag to patches with your name on
it if you do not want to.  But for those who work on changes together,
it is important to give them that type of credit.

thanks,

greg k-h

Re: [PATCH for-rc] RDMA/bnxt_re: Honor vlan_id in GID entry comparison

[Leon Romanovsky]

On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 06:58:52PM +0900, Greg KH wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 12:50:07PM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 06:09:17PM +0900, Greg KH wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 11:41:26AM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 04:16:44PM +0900, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 10:10:30AM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > > > > On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 05:19:13AM -0400, Selvin Xavier wrote:
> > > > > > > GID entry consist of GID, vlan, netdev and smac.
> > > > > > > Extend GID duplicate check companions to consider vlan_id as well
> > > > > > > to support IPv6 VLAN based link local addresses. Introduce
> > > > > > > a new structure (bnxt_qplib_gid_info) to hold gid and vlan_id information.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The issue is discussed in the following thread
> > > > > > > https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-rdma/msg81594.html
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Fixes: 823b23da7113 ("IB/core: Allow vlan link local address based RoCE GIDs")
> > > > > > > Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> # v5.2+
> > > > > > > Reported-by: Yi Zhang <yi.zhang@redhat.com>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Co-developed-by: Parav Pandit <parav@mellanox.com>
> > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Parav Pandit <parav@mellanox.com>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I never understood why bad habits are so stinky.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Can you please explain us what does it mean Co-developed-by and
> > > > > > Signed-off-by of the same person in the same patch?
> > > > >
> > > > > See Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst for what that tag
> > > > > means.
> > > >
> > > > Read it, it doesn't help me to understand if I should now add
> > > > Co-developed-by tag to most of RDMA Mellanox upstreamed patches,
> > > > which already care my Signed-off-by, because I'm changing and fixing
> > > > them many times.
> > >
> > > It depends, it's your call, if you think you deserve the credit, sure,
> > > add it.  If you are just doing basic "review" where you tell people what
> > > needs to be done better, that's probably not what you need to do here.
> >
> > I'll probably not use this and not because I don't deserve credit, but
> > because it looks ridiculously to me to see my name repeated N times for
> > my work.
>
> That's up to you, and your fellow co-authors to decide.
>
> > > One example, where I just added myself to a patch happened last week
> > > where the developer submitted one solution, I took it and rewrote the
> > > whole implementation (from raw kobjects to using the driver model).  The
> > > original author got the "From:" and I got a Co-developed-by line.
> >
> > In old days, we simply changed Author field if changes were above some
> > arbitrary threshold (usually half of the original patch) and added SOB.
> >
> > Why wasn't this approach enough?
>
> Because we have had some patches where it really was a work of multiple
> people and it is good to show the correct authorship wherever possible.
>
> If you look, this tag was added based on a document in the kernel tree
> that Thomas and I worked on together and we both wanted the "blame" for
> it :)
>
> > > Does that help?
> >
> > Yes, and it makes me wonder when we will need to hire compliance officer
> > who will review all our upstreamed patches to comply with more and more
> > bureaucracy.
>
> Oh come on, this is about the ability to give people credit where they
> did not have it before.  It's not about being "compliant", it's about
> being "nice" and "fair".  Something that no one should complain about.
>
> There is no one forcing you to add this tag to patches with your name on
> it if you do not want to.  But for those who work on changes together,
> it is important to give them that type of credit.

It is partly true, I agree that for my own patches I can do more or less
whatever I want, but my responsibilities are broader and I need to guide
internal development teams on how to develop for upstream and how
to upstream their work later on.

Exactly like Theodore (if I'm not mistaken here) mentioned in last
reply to ksummit thread about meaningful Reviewed-by and Acked-by tags,
I got complains when I changed/fixed inappropriate tags. Now, I'll get
extra complains for not allowing to use Co-... tag too.

So it is not true for my second responsibility, where I must to do it
right and with minimal number of my personal preferences.

This extra documented tag puts me in position where I don't want to
be - in the middle between documentation and personal opinion on not
important thing.

Thanks

>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h

Re: [PATCH for-rc] RDMA/bnxt_re: Honor vlan_id in GID entry comparison

[Jason Gunthorpe]

On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 05:19:13AM -0400, Selvin Xavier wrote:
> GID entry consist of GID, vlan, netdev and smac.
> Extend GID duplicate check companions to consider vlan_id as well
> to support IPv6 VLAN based link local addresses. Introduce
> a new structure (bnxt_qplib_gid_info) to hold gid and vlan_id information.
> 
> The issue is discussed in the following thread
> https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-rdma/msg81594.html
> 
> Fixes: 823b23da7113 ("IB/core: Allow vlan link local address based RoCE GIDs")
> Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> # v5.2+
> Reported-by: Yi Zhang <yi.zhang@redhat.com>
> Co-developed-by: Parav Pandit <parav@mellanox.com>
> Signed-off-by: Parav Pandit <parav@mellanox.com>
> Signed-off-by: Selvin Xavier <selvin.xavier@broadcom.com>
> Tested-by: Yi Zhang <yi.zhang@redhat.com>
> Reviewed-By: Leon R...
> Tested-by: Leon R...
> ---
>  drivers/infiniband/hw/bnxt_re/ib_verbs.c  |  7 +++++--
>  drivers/infiniband/hw/bnxt_re/qplib_res.c | 13 +++++++++----
>  drivers/infiniband/hw/bnxt_re/qplib_res.h |  2 +-
>  drivers/infiniband/hw/bnxt_re/qplib_sp.c  | 14 +++++++++-----
>  drivers/infiniband/hw/bnxt_re/qplib_sp.h  |  7 ++++++-
>  5 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)

Applied to for-rc, thanks

Please also fix that sketchy use of the gid_index

Jason