On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 03:25:00AM +0000, Zhijian Li (Fujitsu) wrote: > > > On 19/09/2023 09:11, Zhu Yanjun wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 8:57 AM Zhijian Li (Fujitsu) > > <lizhijian@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> On 18/09/2023 20:37, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > >>> On Mon, Sep 18, 2023 at 10:05:43AM +0800, Li Zhijian wrote: > >>>> rxe_set_mtu() will call rxe_info_dev() to print message, and > >>>> rxe_info_dev() expects dev_name(rxe->ib_dev->dev) has been assigned. > >>>> > >>>> Previously since dev_name() is not set, when a new rxe link is being > >>>> added, 'null' will be used as the dev_name like: > >>>> > >>>> "(null): rxe_set_mtu: Set mtu to 1024" > >>>> > >>>> Move rxe_register_device() earlier to assign the correct dev_name > >>>> so that it can be read by rxe_set_mtu() later. > >>> > >>> I would expect removal of that print line instead of moving > >>> rxe_register_device(). > >> > >> > >> I also struggled with this point. The last option is keep it as it is. > >> Once rxe is registered, this print will work fine. > > > > I delved into the source code. About moving rxe_register_device, I > > could not find any harm to the driver. > > The point i'm struggling was that, it's strange/opaque to move rxe_register_device(). > There is no doubt that the original order was more clear. > > In terms of the message content, is it valuable to print(pr_info) this message I doubt if that print has any value in day-to-day use of RXE. Thanks
