> +enum nvmet_tcp_send_state {
> + NVMET_TCP_SEND_DATA_PDU = 0,
> + NVMET_TCP_SEND_DATA,
> + NVMET_TCP_SEND_R2T,
> + NVMET_TCP_SEND_DDGST,
> + NVMET_TCP_SEND_RESPONSE
> +};
> +
> +enum nvmet_tcp_recv_state {
> + NVMET_TCP_RECV_PDU,
> + NVMET_TCP_RECV_DATA,
> + NVMET_TCP_RECV_DDGST,
> + NVMET_TCP_RECV_ERR,
> +};
I think you can drop the explicit initialization for
NVMET_TCP_SEND_DATA_PDU.
> +struct nvmet_tcp_recv_ctx {
> +};
There are no users of this empty struct, so it can probably be
dropped..
> + void (*dr)(struct sock *);
> + void (*sc)(struct sock *);
> + void (*ws)(struct sock *);
These looks very cryptic. Can you please at least spell out the
full names as used in the networking code (data_ready, etc).
> +struct nvmet_tcp_port {
> + struct socket *sock;
> + struct work_struct accept_work;
> + struct nvmet_port *nport;
> + struct sockaddr_storage addr;
> + int last_cpu;
> + void (*dr)(struct sock *);
> +};
Same here.
> + pdu->hdr.plen =
> + cpu_to_le32(pdu->hdr.hlen + hdgst + cmd->req.transfer_len + ddgst);
Overly long line.
> +static struct nvmet_tcp_cmd *nvmet_tcp_reverse_list(struct nvmet_tcp_queue *queue, struct llist_node *node)
Way too long line.
Also this function does not reverse a list, it removes from a llist,
adds to a regular list in reverse order and increments a counter. Maybe
there is a better name? It would also seem more readable if the
llist_del_all from the caller moved in here.
> +{
> + struct nvmet_tcp_cmd *cmd;
> +
> + while (node) {
> + struct nvmet_tcp_cmd *cmd = container_of(node, struct nvmet_tcp_cmd, lentry);
> +
Also shouldn't this use llist_entry instead of container_of to document
the intent?
> + list_add(&cmd->entry, &queue->resp_send_list);
> + node = node->next;
> + queue->send_list_len++;
> + }
> +
> + cmd = list_first_entry(&queue->resp_send_list, struct nvmet_tcp_cmd, entry);
> + return cmd;
Besides the way too long line this can be a direct return. Then
again moving the assignment of this in would probably make sense
as well.
> +}
> +
> +static struct nvmet_tcp_cmd *nvmet_tcp_fetch_send_command(struct nvmet_tcp_queue *queue)
Another way too long line. Please just fix this up everwhere.
> + if (!cmd || queue->state == NVMET_TCP_Q_DISCONNECTING) {
> + cmd = nvmet_tcp_fetch_send_command(queue);
> + if (unlikely(!cmd))
> + return 0;
> + }
> +
> + if (cmd->state == NVMET_TCP_SEND_DATA_PDU) {
> + ret = nvmet_try_send_data_pdu(cmd);
> + if (ret <= 0)
> + goto done_send;
> + }
> +
> + if (cmd->state == NVMET_TCP_SEND_DATA) {
> + ret = nvmet_try_send_data(cmd);
> + if (ret <= 0)
> + goto done_send;
> + }
> +
> + if (cmd->state == NVMET_TCP_SEND_DDGST) {
> + ret = nvmet_try_send_ddgst(cmd);
> + if (ret <= 0)
> + goto done_send;
> + }
> +
> + if (cmd->state == NVMET_TCP_SEND_R2T) {
> + ret = nvmet_try_send_r2t(cmd, last_in_batch);
> + if (ret <= 0)
> + goto done_send;
> + }
> +
> + if (cmd->state == NVMET_TCP_SEND_RESPONSE)
> + ret = nvmet_try_send_response(cmd, last_in_batch);
Use a switch statement?
> + if (queue->left) {
> + return -EAGAIN;
> + } else if (queue->offset == sizeof(struct nvme_tcp_hdr)) {
No need for an else after a return.
> +
> + if (unlikely(queue->rcv_state == NVMET_TCP_RECV_ERR))
> + return 0;
> +
> + if (queue->rcv_state == NVMET_TCP_RECV_PDU) {
> + result = nvmet_tcp_try_recv_pdu(queue);
> + if (result != 0)
> + goto done_recv;
> + }
> +
> + if (queue->rcv_state == NVMET_TCP_RECV_DATA) {
> + result = nvmet_tcp_try_recv_data(queue);
> + if (result != 0)
> + goto done_recv;
> + }
> +
> + if (queue->rcv_state == NVMET_TCP_RECV_DDGST) {
> + result = nvmet_tcp_try_recv_ddgst(queue);
> + if (result != 0)
> + goto done_recv;
> + }
switch statement?
> + spin_lock(&queue->state_lock);
> + if (queue->state == NVMET_TCP_Q_DISCONNECTING)
> + goto out;
> +
> + queue->state = NVMET_TCP_Q_DISCONNECTING;
> + schedule_work(&queue->release_work);
> +out:
> + spin_unlock(&queue->state_lock);
No real need for the goto here.
> +static void nvmet_tcp_data_ready(struct sock *sk)
> +{
> + struct nvmet_tcp_queue *queue;
> +
> + read_lock_bh(&sk->sk_callback_lock);
> + queue = sk->sk_user_data;
> + if (!queue)
> + goto out;
> +
> + queue_work_on(queue->cpu, nvmet_tcp_wq, &queue->io_work);
> +out:
> + read_unlock_bh(&sk->sk_callback_lock);
> +}
This should only need rcu_read_proctection, right?
Also no need for the goto.
