lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Jun]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v9 11/22] IB/hns: Add IB device registration
From
Date


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 <xavier.huwei@huawei.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Nenglong Zhao <zhaonenglong@hisilicon.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Lijun Ou <oulijun@huawei.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> 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


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-06-17 03:41    [W:0.078 / U:0.296 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site