On 2020/3/5 20:09, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 05, 2020 at 11:22:18AM +0000, liweihang wrote:
>> On 2020/3/5 14:18, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
>>> On Mon, Mar 02, 2020 at 08:11:31PM +0800, Weihang Li wrote:
>>>> From: Xi Wang <wangxi11@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>
>>>> Simplify the wr opcode conversion from ib to hns by using a map table
>>>> instead of the switch-case statement.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Xi Wang <wangxi11@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Weihang Li <liweihang@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> ---
>>>> drivers/infiniband/hw/hns/hns_roce_hw_v2.c | 70 ++++++++++++++++++------------
>>>> 1 file changed, 43 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/hw/hns/hns_roce_hw_v2.c b/drivers/infiniband/hw/hns/hns_roce_hw_v2.c
>>>> index c8c345f..ea61ccb 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/infiniband/hw/hns/hns_roce_hw_v2.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/infiniband/hw/hns/hns_roce_hw_v2.c
>>>> @@ -56,6 +56,47 @@ static void set_data_seg_v2(struct hns_roce_v2_wqe_data_seg *dseg,
>>>> dseg->len = cpu_to_le32(sg->length);
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> +/*
>>>> + * mapped-value = 1 + real-value
>>>> + * The hns wr opcode real value is start from 0, In order to distinguish between
>>>> + * initialized and uninitialized map values, we plus 1 to the actual value when
>>>> + * defining the mapping, so that the validity can be identified by checking the
>>>> + * mapped value is greater than 0.
>>>> + */
>>>> +#define HR_OPC_MAP(ib_key, hr_key) \
>>>> + [IB_WR_ ## ib_key] = 1 + HNS_ROCE_V2_WQE_OP_ ## hr_key
>>>> +
>>>> +static const u32 hns_roce_op_code[] = {
>>>> + HR_OPC_MAP(RDMA_WRITE, RDMA_WRITE),
>>>> + HR_OPC_MAP(RDMA_WRITE_WITH_IMM, RDMA_WRITE_WITH_IMM),
>>>> + HR_OPC_MAP(SEND, SEND),
>>>> + HR_OPC_MAP(SEND_WITH_IMM, SEND_WITH_IMM),
>>>> + HR_OPC_MAP(RDMA_READ, RDMA_READ),
>>>> + HR_OPC_MAP(ATOMIC_CMP_AND_SWP, ATOM_CMP_AND_SWAP),
>>>> + HR_OPC_MAP(ATOMIC_FETCH_AND_ADD, ATOM_FETCH_AND_ADD),
>>>> + HR_OPC_MAP(SEND_WITH_INV, SEND_WITH_INV),
>>>> + HR_OPC_MAP(LOCAL_INV, LOCAL_INV),
>>>> + HR_OPC_MAP(MASKED_ATOMIC_CMP_AND_SWP, ATOM_MSK_CMP_AND_SWAP),
>>>> + HR_OPC_MAP(MASKED_ATOMIC_FETCH_AND_ADD, ATOM_MSK_FETCH_AND_ADD),
>>>> + HR_OPC_MAP(REG_MR, FAST_REG_PMR),
>>>> + [IB_WR_RESERVED1] = 0,
>>>
>>> hns_roce_op_code[] is declared as static, everything is initialized to
>>> 0, there is no need to set 0 again.
>>
>> OK, thank you.
>>
>>>
>>>> +};
>>>> +
>>>> +static inline u32 to_hr_opcode(u32 ib_opcode)
>>>
>>> No inline functions in *.c, please.
>>
>> Hi Leon,
>>
>> Thanks for your comments.
>>
>> But I'm confused about when we should use static inline and when we should
>> use macros if a function is only used in a *.c. A few days ago, Jason
>> suggested me to use static inline functions, you can check the link below:
>>
>> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/11372851/
>>
>> Are there any rules about that in kernel or in our rdma subsystem? Should
>> I use a macro, just remove the keyword "inline" from this definition or
>> move this definition to .h?
>
> Just drop "inline" word from the declaration.
> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst#L882
>
I got it, thank you :)
>>
>>>
>>>> +{
>>>> + u32 hr_opcode = 0;
>>>> +
>>>> + if (ib_opcode < IB_WR_RESERVED1)
>>>
>>> if (ib_opcode > ARRAY_SIZE(hns_roce_op_code) - 1)
>>> return HNS_ROCE_V2_WQE_OP_MASK;
>>>
>>> return hns_roce_op_code[ib_opcode];
>>>
>>
>> The index of ib_key in hns_roce_op_code[] is not continuous, so there
>> are some invalid ib_wr_opcode for hns between the valid index.
>>
>> For hardware of HIP08, HNS_ROCE_V2_WQE_OP_MASK means invalid opcode but
>> not zero. So we have to check if the ib_wr_opcode has a mapping value in
>> hns_roce_op_code[], and if the mapping result is zero, we have to return
>> HNS_ROCE_V2_WQE_OP_MASK. Is it ok like this?
>
> I didn't mean that you will use my code as is, what about this?
>
> if (ib_opcode > ARRAY_SIZE(hns_roce_op_code) - 1)
> return HNS_ROCE_V2_WQE_OP_MASK;
>
> return hns_roce_op_code[ib_opcode] ?: HNS_ROCE_V2_WQE_OP_MASK;
>
> Thanks
>
OK, thanks for your suggestions.
