On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 09:12:08PM +0800, Leizhen (ThunderTown) wrote:
>
>
> 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.
The service_mask is always ~cpu_to_be64(0), it is some non-working
dead code that has been left in here.
If you really want to touch this then you should have a prep patch to
remove that entire API facet, then the above will make sense.
Jason
