From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28BBAC3F2D1 for ; Mon, 2 Mar 2020 13:49:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED0F222B48 for ; Mon, 2 Mar 2020 13:49:47 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=cloud.ionos.com header.i=@cloud.ionos.com header.b="hn5XKMrl" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727104AbgCBNtr (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Mar 2020 08:49:47 -0500 Received: from mail-io1-f67.google.com ([209.85.166.67]:36632 "EHLO mail-io1-f67.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726894AbgCBNtr (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Mar 2020 08:49:47 -0500 Received: by mail-io1-f67.google.com with SMTP id d15so11571118iog.3 for ; Mon, 02 Mar 2020 05:49:46 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cloud.ionos.com; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=qt5W59GV75NLVJZQK0Qu2jsiSd6N+uS6VYOGY0Zp0Uw=; b=hn5XKMrl5BRb0p9seiiCfMhDDOgOLi9urHuUU/l5ZfU1VdvKg4LsNko+C4jALK+55C rZI5SFZho+7r5nbJrtDdF+93YJmHeixvNFFvxnxeK6J8ypect+yqDmFLXHmudwdIbpZF C/yHq9hjVsRKzBDWfCyIBn2vBVfb4gNkF4VYZMe7YkcLxczU4N8OP/sCjiXsCTiSDZN4 pJFJh7Ld59UsZmH9nAgh6Zscg57DtTbF4qZyqoksizZozaJmjBdRjZ/vga/twkwiEbUO i44k4cYImzMWlLkN68cJOrGs6L87B9/wrLqzB4Cy0Ok1gXXNHLECnqSgJOjx7NRFb98Z JfgA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=qt5W59GV75NLVJZQK0Qu2jsiSd6N+uS6VYOGY0Zp0Uw=; b=Le6cUdemKBljiU0gkJz7OsWDBimroSTPiKOzlZp1bfhyx5K9iSQQyb+cf43njExOol G2IDVajjlvzT7lpdmjFo1t+4Jzpy8IR9qT0yoFYGFjNpsGaSORIrQ5QNkAQg7umzvM/X Ny1T2/E8wqgNvpukCFpAvG/vbGyaQ+GLIrSwNrdtXmkC/oKGi/ZCL0MLw7bHyoM/LDKo LhLktKBk6/tOJcTfwSPd+Vjx3YgIe6XhqME/zpgKEjQ+GYdF99KjMPsd/yZNzSzhFn4K WSuY1H2AosHOPIiZtuZ1SMKavdCRH4Eaxp9Ac4OGSVaW8bOU/n5TZ6DF9OQc+M0E35le j6Ow== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXKc74ZS19SDG2xQjineymLZa43jBIFBgul6knBKCQUmrGPRDb+ bO5fz16IFE5iv3fzKaNvqor9tExBY7rBEuk7oZr/NQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqx2qMlRQKda67ZNog4NkQcSMzTJN6tLlhWDJYk2TaSNmPRkqgoWVUWhaI9vdhPbqKhcVH+xLnHk25qOqudaJnc= X-Received: by 2002:a6b:6814:: with SMTP id d20mr13088638ioc.71.1583156986385; Mon, 02 Mar 2020 05:49:46 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20200221104721.350-1-jinpuwang@gmail.com> <20200221104721.350-6-jinpuwang@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: From: Jinpu Wang Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2020 14:49:35 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 05/25] RDMA/rtrs: client: private header with client structs and functions To: Bart Van Assche Cc: Jack Wang , linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org, Jens Axboe , Christoph Hellwig , Sagi Grimberg , Leon Romanovsky , Doug Ledford , Jason Gunthorpe , Danil Kipnis , Roman Penyaev , Pankaj Gupta Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-rdma-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Mar 1, 2020 at 1:51 AM Bart Van Assche wrote: > > On 2020-02-21 02:47, Jack Wang wrote: > > +struct rtrs_clt { > > + struct list_head /* __rcu */ paths_list; > > The commented out __rcu is confusing. Please remove it and add an > elaborate comment if paths_list is a list head with nonstandard behavior. Will change to a normal comment, we want to use rculist, but no such annotation usage for normal list_head, only hlist_head in kernel tree, Do you know why? > > > +#define PERMIT_SIZE(clt) (sizeof(struct rtrs_permit) + (clt)->pdu_sz) > > +#define GET_PERMIT(clt, idx) ((clt)->permits + PERMIT_SIZE(clt) * (idx)) > > Can these macros be changed into inline functions? will try. > > > +static inline void rtrs_clt_decrease_inflight(struct rtrs_clt_stats *s) > > +{ > > + atomic_dec(&s->inflight); > > +} > > The name of this function is longer than its implementation. Consider to > inline this function. Ok, we can use the atomic_dec directly. > > Thanks, > > Bart. Thanks!