On 2024/12/17 01:55, Alexander Lobakin wrote:
> From: Tariq Toukan <tariqt@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2024 15:42:13 +0200
>
>> From: Rongwei Liu <rongweil@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> Wrap the lag pf access into two new macros:
>> 1. ldev_for_each()
>> 2. ldev_for_each_reverse()
>> The maximum number of lag ports and the index to `natvie_port_num`
>> mapping will be handled by the two new macros.
>> Users shouldn't use the for loop anymore.
>
> [...]
>
>> @@ -1417,6 +1398,26 @@ void mlx5_lag_add_netdev(struct mlx5_core_dev *dev,
>> mlx5_queue_bond_work(ldev, 0);
>> }
>>
>> +int get_pre_ldev_func(struct mlx5_lag *ldev, int start_idx, int end_idx)
>> +{
>> + int i;
>> +
>> + for (i = start_idx; i >= end_idx; i--)
>> + if (ldev->pf[i].dev)
>> + return i;
>> + return -1;
>> +}
>> +
>> +int get_next_ldev_func(struct mlx5_lag *ldev, int start_idx)
>> +{
>> + int i;
>> +
>> + for (i = start_idx; i < MLX5_MAX_PORTS; i++)
>> + if (ldev->pf[i].dev)
>> + return i;
>> + return MLX5_MAX_PORTS;
>> +}
>
> Why aren't these two prefixed with mlx5?
> We can have. No mlx5 prefix aligns with "ldev_for_each/ldev_for_each_reverse()", simple, short and meaningful.
>> +
>> bool mlx5_lag_is_roce(struct mlx5_core_dev *dev)
>> {
>> struct mlx5_lag *ldev;
>
> [...]
>
>>
>> +#define ldev_for_each(i, start_index, ldev) \
>> + for (int tmp = start_index; tmp = get_next_ldev_func(ldev, tmp), \
>> + i = tmp, tmp < MLX5_MAX_PORTS; tmp++)
>> +
>> +#define ldev_for_each_reverse(i, start_index, end_index, ldev) \
>> + for (int tmp = start_index, tmp1 = end_index; \
>> + tmp = get_pre_ldev_func(ldev, tmp, tmp1), \
>> + i = tmp, tmp >= tmp1; tmp--)
>
> Same?
Reverse is used to the error handling. Add end index is more convenient.
Of course, we can remove the end_index.
But all the logic need to add:
if (i < end_index)
break;
If no strong comments, I would like to keep as now.
>
> Thanks,
> Olek
