On Wed, 03 Jul 2024 16:51:32 +0300 Roger Quadros wrote:
>
> - if (queue >= AM65_CPSW_MAX_TX_QUEUES)
> + if (queue >= AM65_CPSW_MAX_TX_QUEUES &&
> + queue >= AM65_CPSW_MAX_RX_QUEUES)
> return -EINVAL;
both MAXes are 8, the else conditions below are dead code
Same for set
> - tx_chn = &common->tx_chns[queue];
> + if (queue < AM65_CPSW_MAX_TX_QUEUES) {
> + tx_chn = &common->tx_chns[queue];
> + coal->tx_coalesce_usecs = tx_chn->tx_pace_timeout / 1000;
> + } else {
> + coal->tx_coalesce_usecs = ~0;
> + }
>
> - coal->tx_coalesce_usecs = tx_chn->tx_pace_timeout / 1000;
> + if (queue < AM65_CPSW_MAX_RX_QUEUES) {
> + rx_flow = &common->rx_chns.flows[queue];
> + coal->rx_coalesce_usecs = rx_flow->rx_pace_timeout / 1000;
> + } else {
> + coal->rx_coalesce_usecs = ~0;
> + }
+ for (flow_idx = 0; flow_idx < common->rx_ch_num_flows; flow_idx++) {
+ flow = &rx_chn->flows[flow_idx];
+ for (i = 0; i < AM65_CPSW_MAX_RX_DESC; i++) {
+ page = page_pool_dev_alloc_pages(flow->page_pool);
+ if (!page) {
+ dev_err(common->dev, "cannot allocate page in flow %d\n",
+ flow_idx);
+ ret = -ENOMEM;
+ if (i)
+ goto fail_rx;
- return ret;
- }
- rx_chn->pages[i] = page;
+ return ret;
the direct returns now that it's a double-nested loop seem questionable,
don't you have to goto fail_rx?
