netdev - Re: [PATCH v9 11/22] IB/hns: Add IB device registration

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: <57635198.2070208@huawei.com>
Date:	Fri, 17 Jun 2016 09:25:44 +0800
From:	"Wei Hu (Xavier)" <xavier.huwei@...wei.com>
To:	<leon@...nel.org>
CC:	Lijun Ou <oulijun@...wei.com>, <dledford@...hat.com>,
	<sean.hefty@...el.com>, <hal.rosenstock@...il.com>,
	<davem@...emloft.net>, <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>,
	<jiri@...lanox.com>, <ogerlitz@...lanox.com>,
	<linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <gongyangming@...wei.com>,
	<xiaokun@...wei.com>, <tangchaofei@...wei.com>,
	<haifeng.wei@...wei.com>, <yisen.zhuang@...wei.com>,
	<yankejian@...wei.com>, <charles.chenxin@...wei.com>,
	<linuxarm@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 11/22] IB/hns: Add IB device registration



On 2016/6/13 20:46, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 05:41:06PM +0800, Wei Hu (Xavier) wrote:
>>
>> On 2016/6/9 14:26, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 01, 2016 at 11:37:53PM +0800, Lijun Ou wrote:
>>>> This patch registered IB device when loaded, and unregistered
>>>> IB device when removed.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Wei Hu <xavier.huwei@...wei.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Nenglong Zhao <zhaonenglong@...ilicon.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Lijun Ou <oulijun@...wei.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>   drivers/infiniband/hw/hns/hns_roce_main.c | 46 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>   1 file changed, 46 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/hw/hns/hns_roce_main.c b/drivers/infiniband/hw/hns/hns_roce_main.c
>>>> index 7fb0d34..f179a7f 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/infiniband/hw/hns/hns_roce_main.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/infiniband/hw/hns/hns_roce_main.c
>>>> @@ -62,6 +62,41 @@
>>>>   #include "hns_roce_device.h"
>>>>   #include "hns_roce_icm.h"
>>>> +void hns_roce_unregister_device(struct hns_roce_dev *hr_dev)
>>> You are not calling to this function in this patch.
>>>
>>>> +{
>>>> +	ib_unregister_device(&hr_dev->ib_dev);
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> +int hns_roce_register_device(struct hns_roce_dev *hr_dev)
>>> This function should be static.
>>>
>>>> +{
>>>> +	int ret;
>>>> +	struct hns_roce_ib_iboe *iboe = NULL;
>>>> +	struct ib_device *ib_dev = NULL;
>>>> +	struct device *dev = &hr_dev->pdev->dev;
>>>> +
>>>> +	iboe = &hr_dev->iboe;
>>>> +
>>>> +	ib_dev = &hr_dev->ib_dev;
>>>> +	strlcpy(ib_dev->name, "hisi_%d", IB_DEVICE_NAME_MAX);
>>>> +
>>>> +	ib_dev->owner			= THIS_MODULE;
>>>> +	ib_dev->node_type		= RDMA_NODE_IB_CA;
>>>> +	ib_dev->dma_device		= dev;
>>>> +
>>>> +	ib_dev->phys_port_cnt		= hr_dev->caps.num_ports;
>>>> +	ib_dev->local_dma_lkey		= hr_dev->caps.reserved_lkey;
>>>> +	ib_dev->num_comp_vectors	= hr_dev->caps.num_comp_vectors;
>>>> +	ib_dev->uverbs_abi_ver		= 1;
>>>> +
>>>> +	ret = ib_register_device(ib_dev, NULL);
>>>> +	if (ret) {
>>>> +		dev_err(dev, "ib_register_device failed!\n");
>>>> +		return ret;
>>>> +	}
>>>> +
>>>> +	return 0;
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>>   int hns_roce_get_cfg(struct hns_roce_dev *hr_dev)
>>>>   {
>>>>   	int i;
>>>> @@ -363,6 +398,17 @@ static int hns_roce_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>>   		goto error_failed_engine_init;
>>>>   	}
>>>> +	ret = hns_roce_register_device(hr_dev);
>>>> +	if (ret) {
>>>> +		dev_err(dev, "register_device failed!\n");
>>> According to the current code, you will print this error together with
>>> error line in hns_roce_register_device for the same failure.
>>>
>>> "ib_register_device failed!"
>>> "register_device failed!"
>> Hi, leon
>>      In this patch [PATCH v9 11/22], there is only one error branch in
>> funtion named hns_roce_register_device.
>>      In the following patch [PATCH v9 13/22], we add more operation, there
>> are more
>>          than two error branch in this function as below.
> Yes, and in all these error flows you already printed debug messages, your
> "register_device failed" print is useless.
Hi, leon
     We have fixed it.
     And Oulijun have sent PATCH V10. Thanks

Regards
Wei Hu