Re: [PATCH v3 04/28] IB/Verbs: Reform IB-core cm

[Michael Wang <yun.wang@profitbricks.com>]

On 04/13/2015 08:12 PM, ira.weiny wrote:
[snip]
>> -
>> -	if (rdma_node_get_transport(ib_device->node_type) != RDMA_TRANSPORT_IB)
>> -		return;
>> +	int count = 0;
> 
> I'm ok with this as an intermediate patch but going forward if we are going to
> have calls like 
> 
> static inline int cap_ib_cm_dev(struct ib_device *device)

Actually I really don't want to introduce this kind of helper, it's slow, ugly
and break the consistency, but I can't find a good way to avoid that...

For example the check inside cma_listen_on_dev(), how could we do per-port check
while don't even know which port will be used later...

> 
> Then I think we should have similar calls like
> 
> cap_ib_mad_dev(device)
> 
> Which eliminates the clean up below...

I'd like to avoid using such helper as long as possible :-P

> 
>>  
>>  	cm_dev = kzalloc(sizeof(*cm_dev) + sizeof(*port) *
>>  			 ib_device->phys_port_cnt, GFP_KERNEL);
>> @@ -3783,6 +3781,9 @@ static void cm_add_one(struct ib_device *ib_device)
>>  
>>  	set_bit(IB_MGMT_METHOD_SEND, reg_req.method_mask);
>>  	for (i = 1; i <= ib_device->phys_port_cnt; i++) {
>> +		if (!rdma_ib_or_iboe(ib_device, i))
>> +			continue;
>> +
>>  		port = kzalloc(sizeof *port, GFP_KERNEL);
>>  		if (!port)
>>  			goto error1;
>> @@ -3809,7 +3810,16 @@ static void cm_add_one(struct ib_device *ib_device)
>>  		ret = ib_modify_port(ib_device, i, 0, &port_modify);
>>  		if (ret)
>>  			goto error3;
>> +
>> +		count++;
>>  	}
>> +
>> +	if (!count) {
>> +		device_unregister(cm_dev->device);
>> +		kfree(cm_dev);
>> +		return;
> 
> Here.
> 
> I worry about mistakes being made when we loop through only to find that none
> of the ports support the feature and then we have to clean up.  As this is
> initialization code I don't see any issue with looping through the ports 2
> times and making the code cleaner.

This style of logical could be found in other core module too, may be keep
consistent is not a bad idea?

After all, it's just initialization code which relatively rarely used :-)

Regards,
Michael Wang

> 
> This applies to the SA and CM modules as well.
> 
> However, in the ib_cm module you already have cap_ib_cm_dev(device) so you
> should use it at the start of cm_add_one.
> 
> Ira
>