[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e995f2d2-0bfb-08aa-3074-db849f759388@amd.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2023 16:24:49 -0700
From: Brett Creeley <bcreeley@....com>
To: "Ertman, David M" <david.m.ertman@...el.com>,
"intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org" <intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org>
Cc: "daniel.machon@...rochip.com" <daniel.machon@...rochip.com>,
"simon.horman@...igine.com" <simon.horman@...igine.com>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH iwl-next v4 05/10] ice: process events created by lag
netdev event handler
On 6/14/2023 4:19 PM, Ertman, David M wrote:
> Caution: This message originated from an External Source. Use proper caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding.
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Brett Creeley <bcreeley@....com>
>> Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2023 2:24 PM
>> To: Ertman, David M <david.m.ertman@...el.com>; intel-wired-
>> lan@...ts.osuosl.org
>> Cc: daniel.machon@...rochip.com; simon.horman@...igine.com;
>> netdev@...r.kernel.org
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH iwl-next v4 05/10] ice: process events created by lag
>> netdev event handler
>>
>> On 6/9/2023 2:16 PM, Dave Ertman wrote:
>>> Caution: This message originated from an External Source. Use proper
>> caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding.
>>>
>>>
>>> Add in the function framework for the processing of LAG events. Also add
>>> in helper function to perform common tasks.
>>>
>>> Add the basis of the process of linking a lower netdev to an upper netdev.
>>>
>>> Reviewed-by: Daniel Machon <daniel.machon@...rochip.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Dave Ertman <david.m.ertman@...el.com>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_lag.c | 535 +++++++++++++++---
>>> drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_lag.h | 1 +
>>> drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_switch.c | 10 +-
>>> drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_switch.h | 3 +
>>> drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_virtchnl.c | 2 +
>>> 5 files changed, 478 insertions(+), 73 deletions(-)
>>>
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> +/**
>>> + * ice_lag_reclaim_vf_nodes - When interface leaving bond primary
>> reclaims nodes
>>> + * @lag: primary interface lag struct
>>> + * @src_hw: HW struct for current node location
>>> + */
>>> +static void
>>> +ice_lag_reclaim_vf_nodes(struct ice_lag *lag, struct ice_hw *src_hw)
>>> +{
>>> + struct ice_pf *pf;
>>> + int i, tc;
>>> +
>>> + if (!lag->primary || !src_hw)
>>> + return;
>>> +
>>> + pf = lag->pf;
>>> + ice_for_each_vsi(pf, i)
>>> + if (pf->vsi[i] && (pf->vsi[i]->type == ICE_VSI_VF ||
>>> + pf->vsi[i]->type == ICE_VSI_SWITCHDEV_CTRL))
>>> + ice_for_each_traffic_class(tc)
>>> + ice_lag_reclaim_vf_tc(lag, src_hw, i, tc);
>>
>> Seems like indentation got messed up here for ice_lag_reclaim_vf_tc()?
>> Is this supposed to be under the if block?
>
> Unless I am missing something, looks correct to me? The if statement has a parenthetical
> sub block that the second line of the if statement is aligning to. The ice_for_each_traffic_class
> is one indent in from the if block, and the ice_lag_reclaim_vf_tc is under the macro'd for statement.
>
> DaveE
Yeah, you are right. I misread the ice_for_each_traffic_class() as a
function call for some reason, which is where my confusion came in. Thanks!
>>
>>> +}
>>> +
>>
>>
>> [...]
Powered by blists - more mailing lists