| Message ID | 20240923113135.4366-1-kdipendra88@gmail.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Changes Requested |
| Delegated to: | Netdev Maintainers |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [net] net: ethernet: marvell: octeontx2: nic: Add error pointer check in otx2_ethtool.c | expand |
On Mon, Sep 23, 2024 at 11:31:34AM +0000, Dipendra Khadka wrote: > Add error pointer check after calling otx2_mbox_get_rsp(). > Hi Dipendra, Please add a fixes tag here (no blank line between it and your Signed-off-by line). > Signed-off-by: Dipendra Khadka <kdipendra88@gmail.com> As you have posted more than one patch for this driver, with very similar, not overly complex or verbose changes, it might make sense to combine them into a single patch. Or, if not, to bundle them up into a patch-set with a cover letter. Regarding the patch subject, looking at git history, I think an appropriate prefix would be 'octeontx2-pf:'. I would go for something like this: Subject: [PATCH net v2] octeontx2-pf: handle otx2_mbox_get_rsp errors As for the code changes themselves, module the nits below, I agree the error handling is consistent with that elsewhere in the same functions, and is correct. > --- > .../ethernet/marvell/octeontx2/nic/otx2_ethtool.c | 12 ++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/octeontx2/nic/otx2_ethtool.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/octeontx2/nic/otx2_ethtool.c > index 0db62eb0dab3..36a08303752f 100644 > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/octeontx2/nic/otx2_ethtool.c > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/octeontx2/nic/otx2_ethtool.c > @@ -343,6 +343,12 @@ static void otx2_get_pauseparam(struct net_device *netdev, > if (!otx2_sync_mbox_msg(&pfvf->mbox)) { > rsp = (struct cgx_pause_frm_cfg *) > otx2_mbox_get_rsp(&pfvf->mbox.mbox, 0, &req->hdr); > + nit: No blank line here. > + if (IS_ERR(rsp)) { > + mutex_unlock(&pfvf->mbox.lock); > + return; > + } > + > pause->rx_pause = rsp->rx_pause; > pause->tx_pause = rsp->tx_pause; > } > @@ -1074,6 +1080,12 @@ static int otx2_set_fecparam(struct net_device *netdev, > > rsp = (struct fec_mode *)otx2_mbox_get_rsp(&pfvf->mbox.mbox, > 0, &req->hdr); > + Ditto. > + if (IS_ERR(rsp)) { > + err = PTR_ERR(rsp); > + goto end; > + } > + > if (rsp->fec >= 0) > pfvf->linfo.fec = rsp->fec; > else
Hi Simon, On Tue, 24 Sept 2024 at 12:55, Simon Horman <horms@kernel.org> wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 23, 2024 at 11:31:34AM +0000, Dipendra Khadka wrote: > > Add error pointer check after calling otx2_mbox_get_rsp(). > > > > Hi Dipendra, > > Please add a fixes tag here (no blank line between it and your > Signed-off-by line). > > Signed-off-by: Dipendra Khadka <kdipendra88@gmail.com> > > As you have posted more than one patch for this driver, with very similar, > not overly complex or verbose changes, it might make sense to combine them > into a single patch. Or, if not, to bundle them up into a patch-set with a > cover letter. > > Regarding the patch subject, looking at git history, I think > an appropriate prefix would be 'octeontx2-pf:'. I would go for > something like this: > > Subject: [PATCH net v2] octeontx2-pf: handle otx2_mbox_get_rsp errors > If I bundle all the patches for the drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/octeontx2/ , will this subject without v2 work? Or do I need to change anything? I don't know how to send the patch-set with the cover letter. > As for the code changes themselves, module the nits below, I agree the > error handling is consistent with that elsewhere in the same functions, and > is correct. > > > --- > > .../ethernet/marvell/octeontx2/nic/otx2_ethtool.c | 12 ++++++++++++ > > 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/octeontx2/nic/otx2_ethtool.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/octeontx2/nic/otx2_ethtool.c > > index 0db62eb0dab3..36a08303752f 100644 > > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/octeontx2/nic/otx2_ethtool.c > > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/octeontx2/nic/otx2_ethtool.c > > @@ -343,6 +343,12 @@ static void otx2_get_pauseparam(struct net_device *netdev, > > if (!otx2_sync_mbox_msg(&pfvf->mbox)) { > > rsp = (struct cgx_pause_frm_cfg *) > > otx2_mbox_get_rsp(&pfvf->mbox.mbox, 0, &req->hdr); > > + > > nit: No blank line here. > > > + if (IS_ERR(rsp)) { > > + mutex_unlock(&pfvf->mbox.lock); > > + return; > > + } > > + If the above blank line after the check is ok or do I have to remove this as well? > > pause->rx_pause = rsp->rx_pause; > > pause->tx_pause = rsp->tx_pause; > > } > > @@ -1074,6 +1080,12 @@ static int otx2_set_fecparam(struct net_device *netdev, > > > > rsp = (struct fec_mode *)otx2_mbox_get_rsp(&pfvf->mbox.mbox, > > 0, &req->hdr); > > + > > Ditto. > > > + if (IS_ERR(rsp)) { > > + err = PTR_ERR(rsp); > > + goto end; > > + } > > + > > if (rsp->fec >= 0) > > pfvf->linfo.fec = rsp->fec; > > else > > -- > pw-bot: changes-requested Best regards, Dipendra Khadka
On Tue, Sep 24, 2024 at 08:39:47PM +0545, Dipendra Khadka wrote: > Hi Simon, > > On Tue, 24 Sept 2024 at 12:55, Simon Horman <horms@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Sep 23, 2024 at 11:31:34AM +0000, Dipendra Khadka wrote: > > > Add error pointer check after calling otx2_mbox_get_rsp(). > > > > > > > Hi Dipendra, > > > > Please add a fixes tag here (no blank line between it and your > > Signed-off-by line). > > > Signed-off-by: Dipendra Khadka <kdipendra88@gmail.com> > > > > As you have posted more than one patch for this driver, with very similar, > > not overly complex or verbose changes, it might make sense to combine them > > into a single patch. Or, if not, to bundle them up into a patch-set with a > > cover letter. > > > > Regarding the patch subject, looking at git history, I think > > an appropriate prefix would be 'octeontx2-pf:'. I would go for > > something like this: > > > > Subject: [PATCH net v2] octeontx2-pf: handle otx2_mbox_get_rsp errors > > > > If I bundle all the patches for the > drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/octeontx2/ , will this subject without v2 > work? Or do I need to change anything? I don't know how to send the > patch-set with the cover letter. Given that one of the patches is already at v2, probably v3 is best. If you use b4, it should send a cover letter if the series has more than 1 patch. You can use various options to b4 prep to set the prefix (net-next), version, and edit the cover (letter). And you can use various options to b4 send, such as -d, to test your submission before sending it to the netdev ML. Alternatively the following command will output 3 files: a cover letter and a file for each of two patches, with v3 and net-next in the subject of each file. You can edit these files and send them using git send-email. git format-patch --cover-letter -2 -v3 --subject-prefix="PATCH net-next" > > > As for the code changes themselves, module the nits below, I agree the > > error handling is consistent with that elsewhere in the same functions, and > > is correct. > > > > > --- > > > .../ethernet/marvell/octeontx2/nic/otx2_ethtool.c | 12 ++++++++++++ > > > 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/octeontx2/nic/otx2_ethtool.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/octeontx2/nic/otx2_ethtool.c > > > index 0db62eb0dab3..36a08303752f 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/octeontx2/nic/otx2_ethtool.c > > > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/octeontx2/nic/otx2_ethtool.c > > > @@ -343,6 +343,12 @@ static void otx2_get_pauseparam(struct net_device *netdev, > > > if (!otx2_sync_mbox_msg(&pfvf->mbox)) { > > > rsp = (struct cgx_pause_frm_cfg *) > > > otx2_mbox_get_rsp(&pfvf->mbox.mbox, 0, &req->hdr); > > > + > > > > nit: No blank line here. > > > > > + if (IS_ERR(rsp)) { > > > + mutex_unlock(&pfvf->mbox.lock); > > > + return; > > > + } > > > + > > If the above blank line after the check is ok or do I have to remove > this as well? Please leave the blank line after the check (here). > > > > pause->rx_pause = rsp->rx_pause; > > > pause->tx_pause = rsp->tx_pause; > > > }
Hi Simon, On Tue, 24 Sept 2024 at 21:43, Simon Horman <horms@kernel.org> wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 24, 2024 at 08:39:47PM +0545, Dipendra Khadka wrote: > > Hi Simon, > > > > On Tue, 24 Sept 2024 at 12:55, Simon Horman <horms@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 23, 2024 at 11:31:34AM +0000, Dipendra Khadka wrote: > > > > Add error pointer check after calling otx2_mbox_get_rsp(). > > > > > > > > > > Hi Dipendra, > > > > > > Please add a fixes tag here (no blank line between it and your > > > Signed-off-by line). > > > > Signed-off-by: Dipendra Khadka <kdipendra88@gmail.com> > > > > > > As you have posted more than one patch for this driver, with very similar, > > > not overly complex or verbose changes, it might make sense to combine them > > > into a single patch. Or, if not, to bundle them up into a patch-set with a > > > cover letter. > > > > > > Regarding the patch subject, looking at git history, I think > > > an appropriate prefix would be 'octeontx2-pf:'. I would go for > > > something like this: > > > > > > Subject: [PATCH net v2] octeontx2-pf: handle otx2_mbox_get_rsp errors > > > > > > > If I bundle all the patches for the > > drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/octeontx2/ , will this subject without v2 > > work? Or do I need to change anything? I don't know how to send the > > patch-set with the cover letter. > > Given that one of the patches is already at v2, probably v3 is best. > > If you use b4, it should send a cover letter if the series has more than 1 > patch. You can use various options to b4 prep to set the prefix > (net-next), version, and edit the cover (letter). And you can use various > options to b4 send, such as -d, to test your submission before sending it > to the netdev ML. > I did not get this -d and testing? testing in net-next and sending to net? > Alternatively the following command will output 3 files: a cover letter and > a file for each of two patches, with v3 and net-next in the subject of each > file. You can edit these files and send them using git send-email. > > git format-patch --cover-letter -2 -v3 --subject-prefix="PATCH net-next" > Should I send it to net-next or net? Thank you so much for teaching me all these. > > > > > As for the code changes themselves, module the nits below, I agree the > > > error handling is consistent with that elsewhere in the same functions, and > > > is correct. > > > > > > > --- > > > > .../ethernet/marvell/octeontx2/nic/otx2_ethtool.c | 12 ++++++++++++ > > > > 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/octeontx2/nic/otx2_ethtool.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/octeontx2/nic/otx2_ethtool.c > > > > index 0db62eb0dab3..36a08303752f 100644 > > > > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/octeontx2/nic/otx2_ethtool.c > > > > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/octeontx2/nic/otx2_ethtool.c > > > > @@ -343,6 +343,12 @@ static void otx2_get_pauseparam(struct net_device *netdev, > > > > if (!otx2_sync_mbox_msg(&pfvf->mbox)) { > > > > rsp = (struct cgx_pause_frm_cfg *) > > > > otx2_mbox_get_rsp(&pfvf->mbox.mbox, 0, &req->hdr); > > > > + > > > > > > nit: No blank line here. > > > > > > > + if (IS_ERR(rsp)) { > > > > + mutex_unlock(&pfvf->mbox.lock); > > > > + return; > > > > + } > > > > + > > > > If the above blank line after the check is ok or do I have to remove > > this as well? > > Please leave the blank line after the check (here). > > > > > > > pause->rx_pause = rsp->rx_pause; > > > > pause->tx_pause = rsp->tx_pause; > > > > } Best regards, Dipendra Khadka
On Tue, Sep 24, 2024 at 11:42:58PM +0545, Dipendra Khadka wrote: > Hi Simon, > > On Tue, 24 Sept 2024 at 21:43, Simon Horman <horms@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Sep 24, 2024 at 08:39:47PM +0545, Dipendra Khadka wrote: > > > Hi Simon, > > > > > > On Tue, 24 Sept 2024 at 12:55, Simon Horman <horms@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 23, 2024 at 11:31:34AM +0000, Dipendra Khadka wrote: > > > > > Add error pointer check after calling otx2_mbox_get_rsp(). > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Dipendra, > > > > > > > > Please add a fixes tag here (no blank line between it and your > > > > Signed-off-by line). > > > > > Signed-off-by: Dipendra Khadka <kdipendra88@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > As you have posted more than one patch for this driver, with very similar, > > > > not overly complex or verbose changes, it might make sense to combine them > > > > into a single patch. Or, if not, to bundle them up into a patch-set with a > > > > cover letter. > > > > > > > > Regarding the patch subject, looking at git history, I think > > > > an appropriate prefix would be 'octeontx2-pf:'. I would go for > > > > something like this: > > > > > > > > Subject: [PATCH net v2] octeontx2-pf: handle otx2_mbox_get_rsp errors > > > > > > > > > > If I bundle all the patches for the > > > drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/octeontx2/ , will this subject without v2 > > > work? Or do I need to change anything? I don't know how to send the > > > patch-set with the cover letter. > > > > Given that one of the patches is already at v2, probably v3 is best. > > > > If you use b4, it should send a cover letter if the series has more than 1 > > patch. You can use various options to b4 prep to set the prefix > > (net-next), version, and edit the cover (letter). And you can use various > > options to b4 send, such as -d, to test your submission before sending it > > to the netdev ML. > > > > I did not get this -d and testing? testing in net-next and sending to net? I meant that b4 prep -d allows you to see the emails that would be sent without actually sending them. I find this quite useful myself. > > > Alternatively the following command will output 3 files: a cover letter and > > a file for each of two patches, with v3 and net-next in the subject of each > > file. You can edit these files and send them using git send-email. > > > > git format-patch --cover-letter -2 -v3 --subject-prefix="PATCH net-next" > > > > Should I send it to net-next or net? Sorry for the confusion. I wrote net-next in my example, but I think this patch-set would be for net. ...
On Wed, 25 Sept 2024 at 00:00, Simon Horman <horms@kernel.org> wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 24, 2024 at 11:42:58PM +0545, Dipendra Khadka wrote: > > Hi Simon, > > > > On Tue, 24 Sept 2024 at 21:43, Simon Horman <horms@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 24, 2024 at 08:39:47PM +0545, Dipendra Khadka wrote: > > > > Hi Simon, > > > > > > > > On Tue, 24 Sept 2024 at 12:55, Simon Horman <horms@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 23, 2024 at 11:31:34AM +0000, Dipendra Khadka wrote: > > > > > > Add error pointer check after calling otx2_mbox_get_rsp(). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Dipendra, > > > > > > > > > > Please add a fixes tag here (no blank line between it and your > > > > > Signed-off-by line). > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Dipendra Khadka <kdipendra88@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > > > As you have posted more than one patch for this driver, with very similar, > > > > > not overly complex or verbose changes, it might make sense to combine them > > > > > into a single patch. Or, if not, to bundle them up into a patch-set with a > > > > > cover letter. > > > > > > > > > > Regarding the patch subject, looking at git history, I think > > > > > an appropriate prefix would be 'octeontx2-pf:'. I would go for > > > > > something like this: > > > > > > > > > > Subject: [PATCH net v2] octeontx2-pf: handle otx2_mbox_get_rsp errors > > > > > > > > > > > > > If I bundle all the patches for the > > > > drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/octeontx2/ , will this subject without v2 > > > > work? Or do I need to change anything? I don't know how to send the > > > > patch-set with the cover letter. > > > > > > Given that one of the patches is already at v2, probably v3 is best. > > > > > > If you use b4, it should send a cover letter if the series has more than 1 > > > patch. You can use various options to b4 prep to set the prefix > > > (net-next), version, and edit the cover (letter). And you can use various > > > options to b4 send, such as -d, to test your submission before sending it > > > to the netdev ML. > > > > > > > I did not get this -d and testing? testing in net-next and sending to net? > > I meant that b4 prep -d allows you to see the emails that would be sent > without actually sending them. I find this quite useful myself. > > > > > > Alternatively the following command will output 3 files: a cover letter and > > > a file for each of two patches, with v3 and net-next in the subject of each > > > file. You can edit these files and send them using git send-email. > > > > > > git format-patch --cover-letter -2 -v3 --subject-prefix="PATCH net-next" > > > > > > > Should I send it to net-next or net? > > Sorry for the confusion. I wrote net-next in my example, > but I think this patch-set would be for net. > > ... Thank you Simon for everything. Best regards, Dipendra
Hi Simon, On Wed, 25 Sept 2024 at 12:07, Dipendra Khadka <kdipendra88@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, 25 Sept 2024 at 00:00, Simon Horman <horms@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Sep 24, 2024 at 11:42:58PM +0545, Dipendra Khadka wrote: > > > Hi Simon, > > > > > > On Tue, 24 Sept 2024 at 21:43, Simon Horman <horms@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 24, 2024 at 08:39:47PM +0545, Dipendra Khadka wrote: > > > > > Hi Simon, > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 24 Sept 2024 at 12:55, Simon Horman <horms@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 23, 2024 at 11:31:34AM +0000, Dipendra Khadka wrote: > > > > > > > Add error pointer check after calling otx2_mbox_get_rsp(). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Dipendra, > > > > > > > > > > > > Please add a fixes tag here (no blank line between it and your > > > > > > Signed-off-by line). > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Dipendra Khadka <kdipendra88@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > > > > > As you have posted more than one patch for this driver, with very similar, > > > > > > not overly complex or verbose changes, it might make sense to combine them > > > > > > into a single patch. Or, if not, to bundle them up into a patch-set with a > > > > > > cover letter. > > > > > > > > > > > > Regarding the patch subject, looking at git history, I think > > > > > > an appropriate prefix would be 'octeontx2-pf:'. I would go for > > > > > > something like this: > > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: [PATCH net v2] octeontx2-pf: handle otx2_mbox_get_rsp errors > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If I bundle all the patches for the > > > > > drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/octeontx2/ , will this subject without v2 > > > > > work? Or do I need to change anything? I don't know how to send the > > > > > patch-set with the cover letter. > > > > > > > > Given that one of the patches is already at v2, probably v3 is best. > > > > > > > > If you use b4, it should send a cover letter if the series has more than 1 > > > > patch. You can use various options to b4 prep to set the prefix > > > > (net-next), version, and edit the cover (letter). And you can use various > > > > options to b4 send, such as -d, to test your submission before sending it > > > > to the netdev ML. > > > > > > > > > > I did not get this -d and testing? testing in net-next and sending to net? > > > > I meant that b4 prep -d allows you to see the emails that would be sent > > without actually sending them. I find this quite useful myself. > > > > > > > > > Alternatively the following command will output 3 files: a cover letter and > > > > a file for each of two patches, with v3 and net-next in the subject of each > > > > file. You can edit these files and send them using git send-email. > > > > > > > > git format-patch --cover-letter -2 -v3 --subject-prefix="PATCH net-next" > > > > Do I need to maintain patch history below Signed-off-by for each patch when I send them in the patch set? If so, what to do with those which have v1 but no v2 but the patch-set in v3? > > > > > > Should I send it to net-next or net? > > > > Sorry for the confusion. I wrote net-next in my example, > > but I think this patch-set would be for net. > > > > ... > > Thank you Simon for everything. > > Best regards, > Dipendra Best regards, Dipendra
Hi , On Thu, 26 Sept 2024 at 11:27, Dipendra Khadka <kdipendra88@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Simon, > > On Wed, 25 Sept 2024 at 12:07, Dipendra Khadka <kdipendra88@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, 25 Sept 2024 at 00:00, Simon Horman <horms@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 24, 2024 at 11:42:58PM +0545, Dipendra Khadka wrote: > > > > Hi Simon, > > > > > > > > On Tue, 24 Sept 2024 at 21:43, Simon Horman <horms@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 24, 2024 at 08:39:47PM +0545, Dipendra Khadka wrote: > > > > > > Hi Simon, > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 24 Sept 2024 at 12:55, Simon Horman <horms@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 23, 2024 at 11:31:34AM +0000, Dipendra Khadka wrote: > > > > > > > > Add error pointer check after calling otx2_mbox_get_rsp(). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Dipendra, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please add a fixes tag here (no blank line between it and your > > > > > > > Signed-off-by line). > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Dipendra Khadka <kdipendra88@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As you have posted more than one patch for this driver, with very similar, > > > > > > > not overly complex or verbose changes, it might make sense to combine them > > > > > > > into a single patch. Or, if not, to bundle them up into a patch-set with a > > > > > > > cover letter. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regarding the patch subject, looking at git history, I think > > > > > > > an appropriate prefix would be 'octeontx2-pf:'. I would go for > > > > > > > something like this: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: [PATCH net v2] octeontx2-pf: handle otx2_mbox_get_rsp errors > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If I bundle all the patches for the > > > > > > drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/octeontx2/ , will this subject without v2 > > > > > > work? Or do I need to change anything? I don't know how to send the > > > > > > patch-set with the cover letter. > > > > > > > > > > Given that one of the patches is already at v2, probably v3 is best. > > > > > > > > > > If you use b4, it should send a cover letter if the series has more than 1 > > > > > patch. You can use various options to b4 prep to set the prefix > > > > > (net-next), version, and edit the cover (letter). And you can use various > > > > > options to b4 send, such as -d, to test your submission before sending it > > > > > to the netdev ML. > > > > > > > > > > > > > I did not get this -d and testing? testing in net-next and sending to net? > > > > > > I meant that b4 prep -d allows you to see the emails that would be sent > > > without actually sending them. I find this quite useful myself. > > > > > > > > > > > > Alternatively the following command will output 3 files: a cover letter and > > > > > a file for each of two patches, with v3 and net-next in the subject of each > > > > > file. You can edit these files and send them using git send-email. > > > > > > > > > > git format-patch --cover-letter -2 -v3 --subject-prefix="PATCH net-next" > > > > > > > Do I need to maintain patch history below Signed-off-by for each > patch when I send them in the patch set? If so, what to do with those > which have v1 but no v2 but the patch-set in v3? > > > > > > > > > Should I send it to net-next or net? > > > > > > Sorry for the confusion. I wrote net-next in my example, > > > but I think this patch-set would be for net. > > > > > > ... > > > > Thank you Simon for everything. > > > > Best regards, > > Dipendra > > Best regards, > Dipendra Are we accepting any changes related to the error pointer handling for the driver octeontx2? Best Regards, Dipendra Khadka
On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 11:57:02PM +0545, Dipendra Khadka wrote: ... > Are we accepting any changes related to the error pointer handling for > the driver octeontx2? Sorry, I think I'm missing some context. Could you explain in a bit more detail?
Hi Simon, On Tue, 1 Oct 2024 at 19:27, Simon Horman <horms@kernel.org> wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 11:57:02PM +0545, Dipendra Khadka wrote: > > ... > > > Are we accepting any changes related to the error pointer handling for > > the driver octeontx2? > > Sorry, I think I'm missing some context. > Could you explain in a bit more detail? We did not accept the patch where Vladimir replied. So , I thought if there is not anything like that there, then only I will send a patch-set. Hence, I asked this question. Best regards, Dipendra Khadka
diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/octeontx2/nic/otx2_ethtool.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/octeontx2/nic/otx2_ethtool.c index 0db62eb0dab3..36a08303752f 100644 --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/octeontx2/nic/otx2_ethtool.c +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/octeontx2/nic/otx2_ethtool.c @@ -343,6 +343,12 @@ static void otx2_get_pauseparam(struct net_device *netdev, if (!otx2_sync_mbox_msg(&pfvf->mbox)) { rsp = (struct cgx_pause_frm_cfg *) otx2_mbox_get_rsp(&pfvf->mbox.mbox, 0, &req->hdr); + + if (IS_ERR(rsp)) { + mutex_unlock(&pfvf->mbox.lock); + return; + } + pause->rx_pause = rsp->rx_pause; pause->tx_pause = rsp->tx_pause; } @@ -1074,6 +1080,12 @@ static int otx2_set_fecparam(struct net_device *netdev, rsp = (struct fec_mode *)otx2_mbox_get_rsp(&pfvf->mbox.mbox, 0, &req->hdr); + + if (IS_ERR(rsp)) { + err = PTR_ERR(rsp); + goto end; + } + if (rsp->fec >= 0) pfvf->linfo.fec = rsp->fec; else
Add error pointer check after calling otx2_mbox_get_rsp(). Signed-off-by: Dipendra Khadka <kdipendra88@gmail.com> --- .../ethernet/marvell/octeontx2/nic/otx2_ethtool.c | 12 ++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+)