netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 02/12] net/mlx5: LAG, Refactor lag logic

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: <b69a5cac-d870-4181-aaf5-715697f5dbdb@nvidia.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2024 19:42:55 +0800
From: rongwei liu <rongweil@...dia.com>
To: Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.lobakin@...el.com>
Cc: Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...dia.com>, "David S. Miller"
 <davem@...emloft.net>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
 Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
 Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>, Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...dia.com>,
 netdev@...r.kernel.org, Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...dia.com>,
 Gal Pressman <gal@...dia.com>, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org,
 Mark Bloch <mbloch@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 02/12] net/mlx5: LAG, Refactor lag logic



On 2024/12/17 19:32, Alexander Lobakin wrote:
> From: Rongwei Liu <rongweil@...dia.com>
> Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2024 13:44:07 +0800
> 
>>
>>
>> On 2024/12/17 01:55, Alexander Lobakin wrote:
>>> From: Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...dia.com>
>>> Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2024 15:42:13 +0200
>>>
>>>> From: Rongwei Liu <rongweil@...dia.com>
>>>>
>>>> Wrap the lag pf access into two new macros:
>>>> 1. ldev_for_each()
>>>> 2. ldev_for_each_reverse()
>>>> The maximum number of lag ports and the index to `natvie_port_num`
>>>> mapping will be handled by the two new macros.
>>>> Users shouldn't use the for loop anymore.
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>> @@ -1417,6 +1398,26 @@ void mlx5_lag_add_netdev(struct mlx5_core_dev *dev,
>>>>  	mlx5_queue_bond_work(ldev, 0);
>>>>  }
>>>>  
>>>> +int get_pre_ldev_func(struct mlx5_lag *ldev, int start_idx, int end_idx)
>>>> +{
>>>> +	int i;
>>>> +
>>>> +	for (i = start_idx; i >= end_idx; i--)
>>>> +		if (ldev->pf[i].dev)
>>>> +			return i;
>>>> +	return -1;
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> +int get_next_ldev_func(struct mlx5_lag *ldev, int start_idx)
>>>> +{
>>>> +	int i;
>>>> +
>>>> +	for (i = start_idx; i < MLX5_MAX_PORTS; i++)
>>>> +		if (ldev->pf[i].dev)
>>>> +			return i;
>>>> +	return MLX5_MAX_PORTS;
>>>> +}
>>>
>>> Why aren't these two prefixed with mlx5?
>>> We can have. No mlx5 prefix aligns with "ldev_for_each/ldev_for_each_reverse()", simple, short and meaningful.
> 
> All drivers must have its symbols prefixed, otherwise there might be
> name conflicts at anytime and also it's not clear where a definition
> comes from if it's not prefixed.
> 
ACK
>>>> +
>>>>  bool mlx5_lag_is_roce(struct mlx5_core_dev *dev)
>>>>  {
>>>>  	struct mlx5_lag *ldev;
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>>  
>>>> +#define ldev_for_each(i, start_index, ldev) \
>>>> +	for (int tmp = start_index; tmp = get_next_ldev_func(ldev, tmp), \
>>>> +	     i = tmp, tmp < MLX5_MAX_PORTS; tmp++)
>>>> +
>>>> +#define ldev_for_each_reverse(i, start_index, end_index, ldev)      \
>>>> +	for (int tmp = start_index, tmp1 = end_index; \
>>>> +	     tmp = get_pre_ldev_func(ldev, tmp, tmp1), \
>>>> +	     i = tmp, tmp >= tmp1; tmp--)
>>>
>>> Same?
>> Reverse is used to the error handling. Add end index is more convenient.
>> Of course, we can remove the end_index. 
>> But all the logic need to add:
>> 	if (i < end_index)
>> 		break;
>> If no strong comments, I would like to keep as now.
> 
> By "same?" I meant that there two are also not prefixed with mlx5_, the
> same as the two above.

ACK
> 
> Thanks,
> Olek