On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 01:45:26PM -0600, Steve Wise wrote:
> > @@ -2147,7 +2147,9 @@ static int c4iw_reconnect(struct c4iw_ep *ep)
> > err = -ENOMEM;
> > goto fail2;
> > }
> > - insert_handle(ep->com.dev, &ep->com.dev->atid_idr, ep, ep->atid);
> > + err = xa_insert_irq(&ep->com.dev->atids, ep->atid, ep,
> > GFP_KERNEL);
> > + if (err)
> > + goto fail5;
> >
> > /* find a route */
> > if (ep->com.cm_id->m_local_addr.ss_family == AF_INET) {
> > @@ -2198,7 +2200,8 @@ static int c4iw_reconnect(struct c4iw_ep *ep)
> > fail4:
> > dst_release(ep->dst);
> > fail3:
> > - remove_handle(ep->com.dev, &ep->com.dev->atid_idr, ep->atid);
> > + xa_erase_irq(&ep->com.dev->atids, ep->atid);
> > +fail5:
> > cxgb4_free_atid(ep->com.dev->rdev.lldi.tids, ep->atid);
> > fail2:
>
> Don't like the out-of-order label. Care to rename all of them to make them
> more descriptive and avoid this 4, 3, 5, 2 sequence?
That seemed incredibly dangerous to me. I'm not sure I could get it right.
How about I introduce this one with a name, like most drivers do?
