在 2018/1/4 5:19, Jason Gunthorpe 写道:
> On Wed, Jan 03, 2018 at 10:44:05AM +0800, Lijun Ou wrote:
>> +static void set_access_flags(struct hns_roce_qp *hr_qp,
>> + struct hns_roce_v2_qp_context *context,
>> + struct hns_roce_v2_qp_context *qpc_mask,
>> + const struct ib_qp_attr *attr, int attr_mask)
>> +{
>> + u8 dest_rd_atomic;
>> + u32 access_flags;
>> +
>> + dest_rd_atomic = !!(attr_mask & IB_QP_MAX_DEST_RD_ATOMIC) ?
>> + attr->max_dest_rd_atomic : hr_qp->resp_depth;
>> +
>> + access_flags = !!(attr_mask & IB_QP_ACCESS_FLAGS) ?
>> + attr->qp_access_flags : hr_qp->atomic_rd_en;
>
> These !! are un-needed when used in a boolean context like ?:
>
>> + if (!dest_rd_atomic)
>> + access_flags &= IB_ACCESS_REMOTE_WRITE;
>> +
>> + roce_set_bit(context->byte_76_srqn_op_en, V2_QPC_BYTE_76_RRE_S,
>> + !!(access_flags & IB_ACCESS_REMOTE_READ));
>> + roce_set_bit(qpc_mask->byte_76_srqn_op_en, V2_QPC_BYTE_76_RRE_S, 0);
>> +
>> + roce_set_bit(context->byte_76_srqn_op_en, V2_QPC_BYTE_76_RWE_S,
>> + !!(access_flags & IB_ACCESS_REMOTE_WRITE));
>> + roce_set_bit(qpc_mask->byte_76_srqn_op_en, V2_QPC_BYTE_76_RWE_S, 0);
>> +
>> + roce_set_bit(context->byte_76_srqn_op_en, V2_QPC_BYTE_76_ATE_S,
>> + !!(access_flags & IB_ACCESS_REMOTE_ATOMIC));
>
> And having something called 'set_bit' that does not accept a bool is
> just asking for bugs. You should fix the macro to do the !! and remove
> it from all the callers.
>
> I took this as is, you can send a cleanup someday.
>
> Jason
>
Ok, thanks. I will do it in next future.
>
>
--
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
