On 10/26/20 6:27 AM, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> From: Maor Gottlieb <maorg@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> In case srpt_refresh_port failed for the second port, then
> we don't unregister the MAD agnet.
^^^^^
agent?
The commit message is incomplete. Why does this patch have a Fixes tag?
The commit message should explain this but doesn't explain this.
What does this patch actually change? ib_unregister_mad_agent() is only
called by the current code if sport->mad_agent != NULL.
> -static void srpt_unregister_mad_agent(struct srpt_device *sdev)
> +static void __srpt_unregister_mad_agent(struct srpt_device *sdev, int port_cnt)
> {
> struct ib_port_modify port_modify = {
> .clr_port_cap_mask = IB_PORT_DEVICE_MGMT_SUP,
> @@ -633,7 +627,10 @@ static void srpt_unregister_mad_agent(struct srpt_device *sdev)
> struct srpt_port *sport;
> int i;
>
> - for (i = 1; i <= sdev->device->phys_port_cnt; i++) {
> + if (!port_cnt)
> + return;
> +
> + for (i = 1; i <= port_cnt; i++) {
> sport = &sdev->port[i - 1];
> WARN_ON(sport->port != i);
> if (sport->mad_agent) {
If this patch is retained, please leave the if-test out if you agree
that it is not necessary. I'm concerned that it will confuse readers.
Thanks,
Bart.
