On Mon, Aug 18, 2025 at 10:40 AM Dragos Tatulea <dtatulea@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 15, 2025 at 10:37:15AM -0700, Mina Almasry wrote:
> > 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)?
> >
> netdev_get_by_index_lock() returns non-NULL only when the device is in
> state NETDEV_REGISTERED or NETREG_UNINITIALIZED. So I think that this
> check should suffice.
>
Ack, thanks for checking. For the patch:
Reviewed-by: Mina Almasry <almasrymina@xxxxxxxxxx>
--
Thanks,
Mina
