在 2018/11/30 12:42, Jason Gunthorpe 写道:
> On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 11:04:07AM +0800, oulijun wrote:
>> 在 2018/11/30 8:06, Jason Gunthorpe 写道:
>>> On Sat, Nov 24, 2018 at 04:49:20PM +0800, Lijun Ou wrote:
>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/hw/hns/hns_roce_srq.c b/drivers/infiniband/hw/hns/hns_roce_srq.c
>>>> new file mode 100644
>>>> index 0000000..d8a8613
>>>> +++ b/drivers/infiniband/hw/hns/hns_roce_srq.c
>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
>>>> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 OR Linux-OpenIB
>>>> +/*
>>>> + * Copyright (c) 2018 Hisilicon Limited.
>>>> + */
>>>> +
>>>> +#include <rdma/ib_umem.h>
>>>> +#include <rdma/hns-abi.h>
>>>> +#include "hns_roce_device.h"
>>>> +#include "hns_roce_cmd.h"
>>>> +#include "hns_roce_hem.h"
>>>> +
>>>> +int hns_roce_init_srq_table(struct hns_roce_dev *hr_dev)
>>>> +{
>>>> + struct hns_roce_srq_table *srq_table = &hr_dev->srq_table;
>>>> +
>>>> + xa_init(&srq_table->xa);
>>> Is a call to xa_destroy missing?
>>>
>>> Jason
>> Hi, Jason
>> It uses xarray instead radix tree. the orign code as follows:
>> spin_lock_int(&srq_table->lock);
>> INIT_RADIX_TREE(&srq_table->tree, GFP_ATOMIC);
>>
>> So, we should use xa_init instead of it. I think that it should not use xa_destroy.
> Well, radix tree didn't have a destroy, it was considered destroyed
> when empty, while xarray does have a destroy. Seems reasonable to call
> it even if you know the xarray is empty? Matthew?
>
> Jason
>
Hi, Matthew
I think that it is right for jason's views. I check the all patches from the address from jason again. all places
is not call the xa_destroy. what is your opinion?
thanks
Lijun Ou
