On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 5:28 PM, Jason Gunthorpe
<jgunthorpe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 05:59:01PM +0200, Matan Barak wrote:
>
>> +int ib_uverbs_dealloc_xrcd(struct ib_uverbs_device *dev,
>> + struct ib_xrcd *xrcd,
>> + enum rdma_remove_reason why)
>> {
>> struct inode *inode;
>> + int ret;
>>
>> inode = xrcd->inode;
>> if (inode && !atomic_dec_and_test(&xrcd->usecnt))
>> - return;
>> + return 0;
>>
>> - ib_dealloc_xrcd(xrcd);
>> + ret = ib_dealloc_xrcd(xrcd);
>>
>> - if (inode)
>> + if (why == RDMA_REMOVE_DESTROY && ret)
>> + atomic_inc(&xrcd->usecnt);
>
> Is this suposed to be _inc? Might need a comment since every other
> dealloc has a dec?
>
Yeah, it should be an _inc as if ib_dealloc_xrcd fails, we should restore the
object's reference count. I agree that the right approach is to
encompass that in
ib_dealloc_xrcd, but this shouldn't be part of this patch-set.
> Jason
Matan
> --
> 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
--
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
