On 2024/12/17 19:32, Alexander Lobakin wrote: > From: Rongwei Liu <rongweil@xxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2024 13:44:07 +0800 > >> >> >> 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. > > All drivers must have its symbols prefixed, otherwise there might be > name conflicts at anytime and also it's not clear where a definition > comes from if it's not prefixed. > ACK >>>> + >>>> 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. > > By "same?" I meant that there two are also not prefixed with mlx5_, the > same as the two above. ACK > > Thanks, > Olek