[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9DD61F30A802C4429A01CA4200E302A7A5A4FAF6@fmsmsx124.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2019 21:07:51 +0000
From: "Saleem, Shiraz" <shiraz.saleem@...el.com>
To: 'Jason Gunthorpe' <jgg@...pe.ca>,
Gal Pressman <galpress@...zon.com>
CC: "dledford@...hat.com" <dledford@...hat.com>,
"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org" <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"Ismail, Mustafa" <mustafa.ismail@...el.com>,
"Kirsher, Jeffrey T" <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>
Subject: RE: [RFC v1 10/19] RDMA/irdma: Add connection manager
>Subject: Re: [RFC v1 10/19] RDMA/irdma: Add connection manager
>
>On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 01:21:16PM +0200, Gal Pressman wrote:
>> On 15-Feb-19 19:10, Shiraz Saleem wrote:
>> > +/**
>> > + * irdma_cm_teardown_connections - teardown QPs
>> > + * @iwdev: device pointer
>> > + * @ipaddr: Pointer to IPv4 or IPv6 address
>> > + * @ipv4: flag indicating IPv4 when true
>>
>> There is no ipv4 parameter.
>
>Be sure to run code through make W=1 - it runs stuff that checks the kdocs.
OK. Will do. Thanks! We have a few hits here.
>
>> > + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&teardown_list);
>> > + for (i = 0; i < IRDMA_MAX_USER_PRIORITY; i++) {
>> > + spin_lock_irqsave(&vsi->qos[i].lock, flags);
>> > + list_for_each_safe(list_node, list_core_temp, &vsi->qos[i].qplist) {
>> > + u32 qp_ip[4];
>> > +
>> > + sc_qp = container_of(list_node, struct irdma_sc_qp, list);
>> > + if (sc_qp->qp_type != IRDMA_QP_TYPE_ROCE_RC)
>> > + continue;
>> > +
>> > + qp = sc_qp->back_qp;
>> > + if (!disconnect_all) {
>> > + if (nfo->ipv4)
>> > + qp_ip[0] = qp->udp_info.local_ipaddr3;
>> > + else
>> > + memcpy(qp_ip,
>> > + &qp->udp_info.local_ipaddr0,
>> > + sizeof(qp_ip));
>> > + }
>> > +
>> > + if (disconnect_all ||
>> > + (nfo->vlan_id == qp->udp_info.vlan_tag &&
>> > + !memcmp(qp_ip, ipaddr, nfo->ipv4 ? 4 : 16))) {
>> > + spin_lock_irqsave(&iwdev->rf->qptable_lock,
>flags);
>>
>> You should use different 'flags' here.
>
>If irqs are already proven disabled it is just spin_lock, right?
>
Correct.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists