[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <484b69ec3d9269ec830453d7c3c3b2c60b15ab40.camel@perches.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2020 16:11:53 -0700
From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To: "Brady, Alan" <alan.brady@...el.com>,
"Kirsher, Jeffrey T" <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>,
"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: "Michael, Alice" <alice.michael@...el.com>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"nhorman@...hat.com" <nhorman@...hat.com>,
"sassmann@...hat.com" <sassmann@...hat.com>,
"Burra, Phani R" <phani.r.burra@...el.com>,
"Hay, Joshua A" <joshua.a.hay@...el.com>,
"Chittim, Madhu" <madhu.chittim@...el.com>,
"Linga, Pavan Kumar" <pavan.kumar.linga@...el.com>,
"Skidmore, Donald C" <donald.c.skidmore@...el.com>,
"Brandeburg, Jesse" <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>,
"Samudrala, Sridhar" <sridhar.samudrala@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [net-next v3 06/15] iecm: Implement mailbox functionality
On Fri, 2020-06-26 at 17:44 +0000, Brady, Alan wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2020 7:58 PM
> > To: Kirsher, Jeffrey T <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>; davem@...emloft.net
> > Cc: Michael, Alice <alice.michael@...el.com>; netdev@...r.kernel.org;
> > nhorman@...hat.com; sassmann@...hat.com; Brady, Alan
> > <alan.brady@...el.com>; Burra, Phani R <phani.r.burra@...el.com>; Hay,
> > Joshua A <joshua.a.hay@...el.com>; Chittim, Madhu
> > <madhu.chittim@...el.com>; Linga, Pavan Kumar
> > <pavan.kumar.linga@...el.com>; Skidmore, Donald C
> > <donald.c.skidmore@...el.com>; Brandeburg, Jesse
> > <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>; Samudrala, Sridhar
> > <sridhar.samudrala@...el.com>
> > Subject: Re: [net-next v3 06/15] iecm: Implement mailbox functionality
> >
> > On Thu, 2020-06-25 at 19:07 -0700, Jeff Kirsher wrote:
> > > From: Alice Michael <alice.michael@...el.com>
> > >
> > > Implement mailbox setup, take down, and commands.
> > []
> > > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/iecm/iecm_controlq.c
> > > b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/iecm/iecm_controlq.c
> > []
> > > @@ -73,7 +142,74 @@ enum iecm_status iecm_ctlq_add(struct iecm_hw
> > *hw,
> > > struct iecm_ctlq_create_info *qinfo,
> > > struct iecm_ctlq_info **cq)
> >
> > Multiple functions using **cp and *cp can be error prone.
> >
>
> We can see how this can be confusing. Would it be acceptable/sufficient to change function parameter name to **cq_arr or **cq_list?
Your code, your choice.
> > > {
> > > - /* stub */
> > > + enum iecm_status status = 0;
> > > + bool is_rxq = false;
> > > +
> > > + if (!qinfo->len || !qinfo->buf_size ||
> > > + qinfo->len > IECM_CTLQ_MAX_RING_SIZE ||
> > > + qinfo->buf_size > IECM_CTLQ_MAX_BUF_LEN)
> > > + return IECM_ERR_CFG;
> > > +
> > > + *cq = kcalloc(1, sizeof(struct iecm_ctlq_info), GFP_KERNEL);
> > > + if (!(*cq))
> > > + return IECM_ERR_NO_MEMORY;
You might use a temporary here after the alloc
struct iecm_ctlq_info *cq;
[...]
*cq_arr = kcalloc(1, sizeof(struct iecm_ctlq_info), GFP_KERNEL);
if (!*cq_arr)
return IECM_ERR_NO_MEMORY;
cq = *cq_arr;
so all uses of cq are consistent.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists