On Fri, Aug 15, 2025 at 4:07 AM Dragos Tatulea <dtatulea@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> For zero-copy (devmem, io_uring), the netdev DMA device used
> is the parent device of the net device. However that is not
> always accurate for mlx5 devices:
> - SFs: The parent device is an auxdev.
> - Multi-PF netdevs: The DMA device should be determined by
> the queue.
>
> This change implements the DMA device queue API that returns the DMA
> device appropriately for all cases.
>
> Signed-off-by: Dragos Tatulea <dtatulea@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> .../net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_main.c | 24 +++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_main.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_main.c
> index 21bb88c5d3dc..0e48065a46eb 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_main.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_main.c
> @@ -5625,12 +5625,36 @@ static int mlx5e_queue_start(struct net_device *dev, void *newq,
> return 0;
> }
>
> +static struct device *mlx5e_queue_get_dma_dev(struct net_device *dev,
> + int queue_index)
> +{
> + struct mlx5e_priv *priv = netdev_priv(dev);
> + struct mlx5e_channels *channels;
> + struct device *pdev = NULL;
> + struct mlx5e_channel *ch;
> +
> + channels = &priv->channels;
> +
> + mutex_lock(&priv->state_lock);
> +
> + if (queue_index >= channels->num)
> + goto out;
> +
> + ch = channels->c[queue_index];
> + pdev = ch->pdev;
This code assumes priv is initialized, and probably that the device is
up/running/registered. At first I thought that was fine, but now that
I look at the code more closely, netdev_nl_bind_rx_doit checks if the
device is present but doesn't seem to check that the device is
registered.
I wonder if we should have a generic check in netdev_nl_bind_rx_doit
for NETDEV_REGISTERED, and if not, does this code handle unregistered
netdev correctly (like netdev_priv and priv->channels are valid even
for unregistered mlx5 devices)?
--
Thanks,
Mina
