On 2/5/2019 6:28 AM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Mon, Feb 04, 2019 at 08:26:48PM -0800, Bart Van Assche wrote:
On 2/4/19 9:50 AM, Max Gurtovoy wrote:
+struct ib_mr *ib_alloc_mr_integrity(struct ib_pd *pd,
+ u32 max_num_data_sg,
+ u32 max_num_meta_sg)
+{
+ struct ib_mr *mr;
+
+ if (!pd->device->ops.alloc_mr_integrity)
+ return ERR_PTR(-EOPNOTSUPP);
+
+ if (!max_num_meta_sg)
+ return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
+
+ mr = pd->device->ops.alloc_mr_integrity(pd, max_num_data_sg,
+ max_num_meta_sg);
+ if (!IS_ERR(mr)) {
+ mr->device = pd->device;
+ mr->pd = pd;
+ mr->dm = NULL;
+ mr->uobject = NULL;
+ atomic_inc(&pd->usecnt);
+ mr->need_inval = false;
+ mr->res.type = RDMA_RESTRACK_MR;
+ rdma_restrack_kadd(&mr->res);
+ mr->type = IB_MR_TYPE_PI;
+ }
+
+ return mr;
+}
Please use the traditional Linux kernel coding style, namely if (IS_ERR(mr))
return mr; instead of the above.
And don't randomly indent some ='s but not others. Just forget about
horizontal alignment :(
Jason
Sure no problem doing that. JFYI, this coding style was taken from
ib_alloc_mr.
I guess we can fix that too in a separate commit.
