On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 03:05:55PM +0200, Christophe JAILLET wrote: > Le 20/07/2021 à 14:23, Leon Romanovsky a écrit : > > On Mon, Jul 19, 2021 at 07:02:15PM +0200, Christophe JAILLET wrote: > > > A set of IRDMA_CQP_SW_SQSIZE_2048 (i.e. 2048) 'cqp_request' are > > > pre-allocated and zeroed in 'irdma_create_cqp()' (hw.c). These > > > structures are managed with the 'cqp->cqp_avail_reqs' list which keeps > > > track of available entries. > > > > > > In 'irdma_free_cqp_request()' (utils.c), when an entry is recycled and goes > > > back to the 'cqp_avail_reqs' list, some fields are reseted. > > > > > > However, one of these fields, 'compl_info', is initialized within > > > 'irdma_alloc_and_get_cqp_request()'. > > > > > > Move the corresponding memset to 'irdma_free_cqp_request()' so that the > > > clean-up is done in only one place. This makes the logic more easy to > > > understand. > > > > I'm not so sure. The function irdma_alloc_and_get_cqp_request() returns > > prepared cqp_request and all users expect that it will returned cleaned > > one. The reliance on some other place to clear part of the structure is > > prone to errors. > > Ok, so maybe, moving: > cqp_request->request_done = false; > cqp_request->callback_fcn = NULL; > cqp_request->waiting = false; > from 'irdma_free_cqp_request()' to 'irdma_alloc_and_get_cqp_request()' to > make explicit what is reseted makes more sense? I think so, but it requires double check that these cleared values are not used after irdma_free_cqp_request(). This is another reason why clearing fields after _free_ routine is mostly wrong. It hides errors when data is accessed after release. Thanks
