On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 02:39:33PM +0300, Yamin Friedman wrote:
>
> On 5/25/2020 7:47 PM, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 01:42:15PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 03:43:34PM +0300, Yamin Friedman wrote:
> > >
> > > > +void ib_cq_pool_init(struct ib_device *dev)
> > > > +{
> > > > + int i;
> > > I generally rather see unsigned types used for unsigned values
> > >
> > > > +
> > > > + spin_lock_init(&dev->cq_pools_lock);
> > > > + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(dev->cq_pools); i++)
> > > > + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&dev->cq_pools[i]);
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > +void ib_cq_pool_destroy(struct ib_device *dev)
> > > > +{
> > > > + struct ib_cq *cq, *n;
> > > > + int i;
> > > > +
> > > > + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(dev->cq_pools); i++) {
> > > > + list_for_each_entry_safe(cq, n, &dev->cq_pools[i],
> > > > + pool_entry) {
> > > > + cq->shared = false;
> > > > + ib_free_cq_user(cq, NULL);
> > > WARN_ON cqe_used == 0?
> > An opposite is better - WARN_ON(cqe_used).
> >
> > <...>
>
> Is this check really necessary as we are closing the device?
It checks that no ULPs forgot to destroy something
Jason
