netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 03/14] bnxt_en: Refactor bnxt_sriov

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:   Sun, 25 Aug 2019 22:36:03 -0700 (PDT)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     michael.chan@...adcom.com
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, vasundhara-v.volam@...adcom.com,
        jiri@...lanox.com, ray.jui@...adcom.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 03/14] bnxt_en: Refactor bnxt_sriov_enable().

From: Michael Chan <michael.chan@...adcom.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2019 23:54:54 -0400

> @@ -687,6 +687,32 @@ static int bnxt_func_cfg(struct bnxt *bp, int num_vfs)
>  		return bnxt_hwrm_func_cfg(bp, num_vfs);
>  }
>  
> +int bnxt_cfg_hw_sriov(struct bnxt *bp, int *num_vfs)
> +{
> +	int rc;
> +
> +	/* Register buffers for VFs */
> +	rc = bnxt_hwrm_func_buf_rgtr(bp);
> +	if (rc)
> +		return rc;
> +
> +	/* Reserve resources for VFs */
> +	rc = bnxt_func_cfg(bp, *num_vfs);
> +	if (rc != *num_vfs) {

I notice that these two operations are reversed here from where they were in the
bnxt_sriov_enable() function.  Does the BUF_RGTR operation have to be undone if
the bnxt_func_cfg() fails?

When it's not a straight extraction of code into a helper function one really
should do one of two things in my opinion:

1) Explain the differences in the commit message.

2) Do a straight extration in one commit, change the ordering in another.