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: <981b2b0f-9c35-4968-a5e8-dd0d36ebec05@nvidia.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2024 13:44:07 +0800
From: rongwei liu <rongweil@...dia.com>
To: Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.lobakin@...el.com>,
 Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...dia.com>
Cc: "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 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.
>> +
>>  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.
> 
> Thanks,
> Olek