On 2021/5/12 20:50, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 06:05:37PM +0800, Zhen Lei wrote:
>> static struct cm_id_private *cm_find_listen(struct ib_device *device,
>> @@ -686,22 +687,23 @@ static struct cm_id_private *cm_find_listen(struct ib_device *device,
>>
>> while (node) {
>> cm_id_priv = rb_entry(node, struct cm_id_private, service_node);
>> - if ((cm_id_priv->id.service_mask & service_id) ==
>> - cm_id_priv->id.service_id &&
>> - (cm_id_priv->id.device == device)) {
>> - refcount_inc(&cm_id_priv->refcount);
>> - return cm_id_priv;
>> - }
>> +
>> if (device < cm_id_priv->id.device)
>> node = node->rb_left;
>> else if (device > cm_id_priv->id.device)
>> node = node->rb_right;
>> + else if ((cm_id_priv->id.service_mask & service_id) == cm_id_priv->id.service_id)
>> + goto found;
>> else if (be64_lt(service_id, cm_id_priv->id.service_id))
>> node = node->rb_left;
>> else
>> node = node->rb_right;
>> }
>
> This is not the pattern I showed you. Drop the first patch and rely on
> the implicit equality in the final else.
Do you mean treate the "found" process as the else branch?
But ((cm_id_priv->id.service_mask & service_id) == cm_id_priv->id.service_id) is different from
(service_id == cm_id_priv->id.service_id)，I'm just worried that it might change the original logic.
>
> Jason
>
> .
>
