On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 11:28:11AM +0800, Wei Hu (Xavier) wrote:
>
>
> On 2018/5/17 23:14, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 04:02:52PM +0800, Wei Hu (Xavier) wrote:
> >> diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/hw/hns/hns_roce_hw_v2.c b/drivers/infiniband/hw/hns/hns_roce_hw_v2.c
> >> index 86ef15f..e1c44a6 100644
> >> +++ b/drivers/infiniband/hw/hns/hns_roce_hw_v2.c
> >> @@ -774,6 +774,9 @@ static int hns_roce_cmq_send(struct hns_roce_dev *hr_dev,
> >> int ret = 0;
> >> int ntc;
> >>
> >> + if (hr_dev->is_reset)
> >> + return 0;
> >> +
> >> spin_lock_bh(&csq->lock);
> >>
> >> if (num > hns_roce_cmq_space(csq)) {
> >> @@ -4790,6 +4793,7 @@ static int hns_roce_hw_v2_init_instance(struct hnae3_handle *handle)
> >> return 0;
> >>
> >> error_failed_get_cfg:
> >> + handle->priv = NULL;
> >> kfree(hr_dev->priv);
> >>
> >> error_failed_kzalloc:
> >> @@ -4803,14 +4807,70 @@ static void hns_roce_hw_v2_uninit_instance(struct hnae3_handle *handle,
> >> {
> >> struct hns_roce_dev *hr_dev = (struct hns_roce_dev *)handle->priv;
> >>
> >> + if (!hr_dev)
> >> + return;
> >> +
> >> hns_roce_exit(hr_dev);
> >> + handle->priv = NULL;
> >> kfree(hr_dev->priv);
> >> ib_dealloc_device(&hr_dev->ib_dev);
> >> }
> > Why are these hunks here? If init fails then uninit should not be
> > called, so why meddle with priv?
> In hns_roce_hw_v2_init_instance function, we evaluate handle->priv with
> hr_dev,
> We want clear the value in hns_roce_hw_v2_uninit_instance function.
> So we can ensure no problem in RoCE driver.
What problem could happen?
I keep removing unnecessary sets to null and checks of null, so please
don't add them if they cannot happen.
Eg uninit should never be called with a null priv, that is a serious
logic mis-design someplace if it happens.
Jason
--
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
