netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 4/8] enic: alloc/free rx_cpu

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <alpine.LNX.2.03.1406101900400.2499@ws.cisco>
Date:	Tue, 10 Jun 2014 19:22:21 +0530 (IST)
From:	Govindarajulu Varadarajan <_govind@....com>
To:	Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com>
cc:	Govindarajulu Varadarajan <_govind@....com>, davem@...emloft.net,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, ssujith@...co.com, gvaradar@...co.com,
	benve@...co.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 4/8] enic: alloc/free rx_cpu_rmap



On Mon, 9 Jun 2014, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:

> @@ -1192,6 +1195,33 @@ static void enic_calc_int_moderation(struct enic 
>> *enic, struct vnic_rq *rq)
>>   	pkt_size_counter->small_pkt_bytes_cnt = 0;
>>   }
>> 
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_RFS_ACCEL
>> +static void enic_free_rx_cpu_rmap(struct enic *enic)
>> +{
>> +	free_irq_cpu_rmap(enic->netdev->rx_cpu_rmap);
>> +	enic->netdev->rx_cpu_rmap = NULL;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static inline void enic_set_rx_cpu_rmap(struct enic *enic)
>
>   No need to use *inline* in a .c file, the compiler should figure it out.
>

Yes, I agree.

>> +{
>> +	int i, res;
>> +
>> +	if (vnic_dev_get_intr_mode(enic->vdev) == VNIC_DEV_INTR_MODE_MSIX) {
>> +		enic->netdev->rx_cpu_rmap = 
>> alloc_irq_cpu_rmap(enic->rq_count);
>> +		if (unlikely(!enic->netdev->rx_cpu_rmap))
>> +			return;
>> +		for (i = 0; i < enic->rq_count; i++) {
>> +			res = irq_cpu_rmap_add(enic->netdev->rx_cpu_rmap,
>> +					       enic->msix_entry[i].vector);
>> +			if (unlikely(res)) {
>> +				enic_free_rx_cpu_rmap(enic);
>> +				return;
>> +			}
>> +		}
>> +	}
>> +}
>
>   It's better to do the following here:
>
> #else
> static void enic_free_rx_cpu_rmap(struct enic *enic)
> {
> }
> static void enic_set_rx_cpu_rmap(struct enic *enic)
> {
> }
>

How about

static void enic_free_rx_cpu_rmap(struct enic *enic)
{
#ifdef CONFIG_RFS_ACCEL
...
...
#endif
}

I prefer this over yours because, if I use yours tools like cscope finds two
definitions of function enic_free_rx_cpu_rmap. Which makes code walk through
little bit difficult.

Thanks
Govind

>> +#endif
>> +
>>   static int enic_poll_msix(struct napi_struct *napi, int budget)
>>   {
>>   	struct net_device *netdev = napi->dev;
>> @@ -1267,6 +1297,9 @@ static void enic_free_intr(struct enic *enic)
>>   	struct net_device *netdev = enic->netdev;
>>   	unsigned int i;
>> 
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_RFS_ACCEL
>> +	enic_free_rx_cpu_rmap(enic);
>> +#endif
>
>   ... so that you can avoid #ifdef's at the call sites.
>
> WBR, Sergei
>
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html