On 10/07/14 16:48, Sagi Grimberg wrote:
-static __be64 *mr_align(__be64 *ptr, int align)
+static void *mr_align(void *ptr, int align)
{
unsigned long mask = align - 1;
- return (__be64 *)(((unsigned long)ptr + mask) & ~mask);
+ return (void *)(((unsigned long)ptr + mask) & ~mask);
}
Maybe I'm missing something, but why doesn't this function use the
ALIGN() macro defined in <linux/kernel.h> ? Are you aware that a type
with name uintptr_t has been defined in <linux/types.h> that is intended
for casting a pointer to an int ?
> +struct ib_indir_reg_list *
> +mlx5_ib_alloc_indir_reg_list(struct ib_device *device,
> + unsigned int max_indir_list_len)
There are three k[zc]alloc() calls in this function. Can these be
combined into one without increasing the chance too much that this will
increase the order of the allocation ?
> + dsize = sizeof(*mirl->klms) * max_indir_list_len;
> + mirl->mapped_ilist = kzalloc(dsize + MLX5_UMR_ALIGN - 1,
> + GFP_KERNEL);
The value of the constant MLX5_UMR_ALIGN is 2048. Does that mean this
code will always allocate 2 KB more than needed ? Is this really the
minimum alignment required for this data structure ? How likely is it
that this code will trigger a higher order allocation ?
> + if (unlikely((*seg == qp->sq.qend)))
A minor comment: one pair of parentheses can be left out from the above
code.
> + mlx5_ib_warn(dev, "\n");
Will the warning generated by this code allow a user to find out which
code triggered that warning ?
Bart.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
