From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Wei Hu (Xavier)" Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 11/22] IB/hns: Add IB device registration Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 09:25:44 +0800 Message-ID: <57635198.2070208@huawei.com> References: <1464795484-77395-1-git-send-email-oulijun@huawei.com> <1464795484-77395-12-git-send-email-oulijun@huawei.com> <20160609062631.GN3663@leon.nu> <575D2E32.8030109@huawei.com> <20160613124638.GG5408@leon.nu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20160613124638.GG5408@leon.nu> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: leon@kernel.org Cc: Lijun Ou , dledford@redhat.com, sean.hefty@intel.com, hal.rosenstock@gmail.com, davem@davemloft.net, jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com, jiri@mellanox.com, ogerlitz@mellanox.com, linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, gongyangming@huawei.com, xiaokun@huawei.com, tangchaofei@huawei.com, haifeng.wei@huawei.com, yisen.zhuang@huawei.com, yankejian@huawei.com, charles.chenxin@huawei.com, linuxarm@huawei.com List-Id: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org On 2016/6/13 20:46, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 05:41:06PM +0800, Wei Hu (Xavier) wrote: >> >> On 2016/6/9 14:26, Leon Romanovsky wrote: >>> On Wed, Jun 01, 2016 at 11:37:53PM +0800, Lijun Ou wrote: >>>> This patch registered IB device when loaded, and unregistered >>>> IB device when removed. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Wei Hu >>>> Signed-off-by: Nenglong Zhao >>>> Signed-off-by: Lijun Ou >>>> --- >>>> drivers/infiniband/hw/hns/hns_roce_main.c | 46 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>>> 1 file changed, 46 insertions(+) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/hw/hns/hns_roce_main.c b/drivers/infiniband/hw/hns/hns_roce_main.c >>>> index 7fb0d34..f179a7f 100644 >>>> --- a/drivers/infiniband/hw/hns/hns_roce_main.c >>>> +++ b/drivers/infiniband/hw/hns/hns_roce_main.c >>>> @@ -62,6 +62,41 @@ >>>> #include "hns_roce_device.h" >>>> #include "hns_roce_icm.h" >>>> +void hns_roce_unregister_device(struct hns_roce_dev *hr_dev) >>> You are not calling to this function in this patch. >>> >>>> +{ >>>> + ib_unregister_device(&hr_dev->ib_dev); >>>> +} >>>> + >>>> +int hns_roce_register_device(struct hns_roce_dev *hr_dev) >>> This function should be static. >>> >>>> +{ >>>> + int ret; >>>> + struct hns_roce_ib_iboe *iboe = NULL; >>>> + struct ib_device *ib_dev = NULL; >>>> + struct device *dev = &hr_dev->pdev->dev; >>>> + >>>> + iboe = &hr_dev->iboe; >>>> + >>>> + ib_dev = &hr_dev->ib_dev; >>>> + strlcpy(ib_dev->name, "hisi_%d", IB_DEVICE_NAME_MAX); >>>> + >>>> + ib_dev->owner = THIS_MODULE; >>>> + ib_dev->node_type = RDMA_NODE_IB_CA; >>>> + ib_dev->dma_device = dev; >>>> + >>>> + ib_dev->phys_port_cnt = hr_dev->caps.num_ports; >>>> + ib_dev->local_dma_lkey = hr_dev->caps.reserved_lkey; >>>> + ib_dev->num_comp_vectors = hr_dev->caps.num_comp_vectors; >>>> + ib_dev->uverbs_abi_ver = 1; >>>> + >>>> + ret = ib_register_device(ib_dev, NULL); >>>> + if (ret) { >>>> + dev_err(dev, "ib_register_device failed!\n"); >>>> + return ret; >>>> + } >>>> + >>>> + return 0; >>>> +} >>>> + >>>> int hns_roce_get_cfg(struct hns_roce_dev *hr_dev) >>>> { >>>> int i; >>>> @@ -363,6 +398,17 @@ static int hns_roce_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) >>>> goto error_failed_engine_init; >>>> } >>>> + ret = hns_roce_register_device(hr_dev); >>>> + if (ret) { >>>> + dev_err(dev, "register_device failed!\n"); >>> According to the current code, you will print this error together with >>> error line in hns_roce_register_device for the same failure. >>> >>> "ib_register_device failed!" >>> "register_device failed!" >> Hi, leon >> In this patch [PATCH v9 11/22], there is only one error branch in >> funtion named hns_roce_register_device. >> In the following patch [PATCH v9 13/22], we add more operation, there >> are more >> than two error branch in this function as below. > Yes, and in all these error flows you already printed debug messages, your > "register_device failed" print is useless. Hi, leon We have fixed it. And Oulijun have sent PATCH V10. Thanks Regards Wei Hu From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755265AbcFQB0W (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Jun 2016 21:26:22 -0400 Received: from szxga01-in.huawei.com ([58.251.152.64]:61929 "EHLO szxga01-in.huawei.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754653AbcFQB0U (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Jun 2016 21:26:20 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 11/22] IB/hns: Add IB device registration To: References: <1464795484-77395-1-git-send-email-oulijun@huawei.com> <1464795484-77395-12-git-send-email-oulijun@huawei.com> <20160609062631.GN3663@leon.nu> <575D2E32.8030109@huawei.com> <20160613124638.GG5408@leon.nu> CC: Lijun Ou , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , From: "Wei Hu (Xavier)" Message-ID: <57635198.2070208@huawei.com> Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 09:25:44 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160613124638.GG5408@leon.nu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.57.115.113] X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A090205.576351A3.0082,ss=1,re=0.000,recu=0.000,reip=0.000,cl=1,cld=1,fgs=0, ip=0.0.0.0, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32 X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: 47d0df1f0f9aa0840acee9fcca3e5be0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 2016/6/13 20:46, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 05:41:06PM +0800, Wei Hu (Xavier) wrote: >> >> On 2016/6/9 14:26, Leon Romanovsky wrote: >>> On Wed, Jun 01, 2016 at 11:37:53PM +0800, Lijun Ou wrote: >>>> This patch registered IB device when loaded, and unregistered >>>> IB device when removed. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Wei Hu >>>> Signed-off-by: Nenglong Zhao >>>> Signed-off-by: Lijun Ou >>>> --- >>>> drivers/infiniband/hw/hns/hns_roce_main.c | 46 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>>> 1 file changed, 46 insertions(+) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/hw/hns/hns_roce_main.c b/drivers/infiniband/hw/hns/hns_roce_main.c >>>> index 7fb0d34..f179a7f 100644 >>>> --- a/drivers/infiniband/hw/hns/hns_roce_main.c >>>> +++ b/drivers/infiniband/hw/hns/hns_roce_main.c >>>> @@ -62,6 +62,41 @@ >>>> #include "hns_roce_device.h" >>>> #include "hns_roce_icm.h" >>>> +void hns_roce_unregister_device(struct hns_roce_dev *hr_dev) >>> You are not calling to this function in this patch. >>> >>>> +{ >>>> + ib_unregister_device(&hr_dev->ib_dev); >>>> +} >>>> + >>>> +int hns_roce_register_device(struct hns_roce_dev *hr_dev) >>> This function should be static. >>> >>>> +{ >>>> + int ret; >>>> + struct hns_roce_ib_iboe *iboe = NULL; >>>> + struct ib_device *ib_dev = NULL; >>>> + struct device *dev = &hr_dev->pdev->dev; >>>> + >>>> + iboe = &hr_dev->iboe; >>>> + >>>> + ib_dev = &hr_dev->ib_dev; >>>> + strlcpy(ib_dev->name, "hisi_%d", IB_DEVICE_NAME_MAX); >>>> + >>>> + ib_dev->owner = THIS_MODULE; >>>> + ib_dev->node_type = RDMA_NODE_IB_CA; >>>> + ib_dev->dma_device = dev; >>>> + >>>> + ib_dev->phys_port_cnt = hr_dev->caps.num_ports; >>>> + ib_dev->local_dma_lkey = hr_dev->caps.reserved_lkey; >>>> + ib_dev->num_comp_vectors = hr_dev->caps.num_comp_vectors; >>>> + ib_dev->uverbs_abi_ver = 1; >>>> + >>>> + ret = ib_register_device(ib_dev, NULL); >>>> + if (ret) { >>>> + dev_err(dev, "ib_register_device failed!\n"); >>>> + return ret; >>>> + } >>>> + >>>> + return 0; >>>> +} >>>> + >>>> int hns_roce_get_cfg(struct hns_roce_dev *hr_dev) >>>> { >>>> int i; >>>> @@ -363,6 +398,17 @@ static int hns_roce_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) >>>> goto error_failed_engine_init; >>>> } >>>> + ret = hns_roce_register_device(hr_dev); >>>> + if (ret) { >>>> + dev_err(dev, "register_device failed!\n"); >>> According to the current code, you will print this error together with >>> error line in hns_roce_register_device for the same failure. >>> >>> "ib_register_device failed!" >>> "register_device failed!" >> Hi, leon >> In this patch [PATCH v9 11/22], there is only one error branch in >> funtion named hns_roce_register_device. >> In the following patch [PATCH v9 13/22], we add more operation, there >> are more >> than two error branch in this function as below. > Yes, and in all these error flows you already printed debug messages, your > "register_device failed" print is useless. Hi, leon We have fixed it. And Oulijun have sent PATCH V10. Thanks Regards Wei Hu