> From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2021 10:44 AM
> ...
> On Wed, 14 Apr 2021 22:45:19 -0700 Dexuan Cui wrote:
> > + buf = dma_alloc_coherent(gmi->dev, length, &dma_handle,
> > + GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_ZERO);
>
> No need for GFP_ZERO, dma_alloc_coherent() zeroes the memory these days.
Yes, indeed. Will remove __GFP_ZERO.
>
> > +static int mana_gd_register_irq(struct gdma_queue *queue,
> > + const struct gdma_queue_spec *spec)
> > ...
> > + struct gdma_irq_context *gic;
> > +
> > + struct gdma_context *gc;
>
> Why the empty line?
No good reason. Will remove this line. I'll check the whole patch
for similar issues.
>
> > + queue = kzalloc(sizeof(*queue), GFP_KERNEL);
> > + if (!queue)
> > + return -ENOMEM;
> > +
> > + gmi = &queue->mem_info;
> > + err = mana_gd_alloc_memory(gc, spec->queue_size, gmi);
> > + if (err)
> > + return err;
>
> Leaks the memory from 'queue'?
Sorry. This should be a bug I introduced when moving arouond some code.
> Same code in mana_gd_create_mana_eq(), ...wq_cq(), etc.
Will fix all of them, and check for the code similar issues.
> > +int mana_do_attach(struct net_device *ndev, enum mana_attach_caller
> caller)
> > +{
> > + struct mana_port_context *apc = netdev_priv(ndev);
> > + struct gdma_dev *gd = apc->ac->gdma_dev;
> > + u32 max_txq, max_rxq, max_queues;
> > + int port_idx = apc->port_idx;
> > + u32 num_indirect_entries;
> > + int err;
> > +
> > + if (caller == MANA_OPEN)
> > + goto start_open;
> > +
> > + err = mana_init_port_context(apc);
> > + if (err)
> > + return err;
> > +
> > + err = mana_query_vport_cfg(apc, port_idx, &max_txq, &max_rxq,
> > + &num_indirect_entries);
> > + if (err) {
> > + netdev_err(ndev, "Failed to query info for vPort 0\n");
> > + goto reset_apc;
> > + }
> > +
> > + max_queues = min_t(u32, max_txq, max_rxq);
> > + if (apc->max_queues > max_queues)
> > + apc->max_queues = max_queues;
> > +
> > + if (apc->num_queues > apc->max_queues)
> > + apc->num_queues = apc->max_queues;
> > +
> > + memcpy(ndev->dev_addr, apc->mac_addr, ETH_ALEN);
> > +
> > + if (caller == MANA_PROBE)
> > + return 0;
> > +
> > +start_open:
>
> Why keep this as a single function, there is no overlap between what's
> done for OPEN and PROBE, it seems.
>
> Similarly detach should probably be split into clearly distinct parts.
Will improve the code. Thanks for the suggestion!
Thanks,
Dexuan
