On Mon, Dec 04, 2023 at 10:20:52AM +0900, Yoshihiro Shimoda wrote:
> If this hardware receives a jumbo frame like 2KiB or more, it will be
> split into multiple queues. In the near future, to support this, use
> build_skb() instead of netdev_alloc_skb_ip_align().
>
> Signed-off-by: Yoshihiro Shimoda <yoshihiro.shimoda.uh@xxxxxxxxxxx>
...
> static void rswitch_gwca_ts_queue_free(struct rswitch_private *priv)
> @@ -308,17 +308,19 @@ static int rswitch_gwca_queue_alloc(struct net_device *ndev,
> gq->ring_size = ring_size;
> gq->ndev = ndev;
>
> - gq->skbs = kcalloc(gq->ring_size, sizeof(*gq->skbs), GFP_KERNEL);
> - if (!gq->skbs)
> - return -ENOMEM;
> -
> if (!dir_tx) {
> - rswitch_gwca_queue_alloc_skb(gq, 0, gq->ring_size);
> + gq->rx_bufs = kcalloc(gq->ring_size, sizeof(*gq->rx_bufs), GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!gq->rx_bufs)
> + goto out;
Hi Shimoda-san,
there is no need to re-spin because of this,
but I have some commends on error handling.
I think that for consistency this can just return -ENOMEM.
Or alternatively, perhaps 'goto out' can be used for the (!gq->skbs)
condition below.
> + rswitch_gwca_queue_alloc_rx_buf(gq, 0, gq->ring_size);
Not strictly related to this patch, but should
the return value of rswitch_gwca_queue_alloc_rx_buf be checked?
>
> gq->rx_ring = dma_alloc_coherent(ndev->dev.parent,
> sizeof(struct rswitch_ext_ts_desc) *
> (gq->ring_size + 1), &gq->ring_dma, GFP_KERNEL);
> } else {
> + gq->skbs = kcalloc(gq->ring_size, sizeof(*gq->skbs), GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!gq->skbs)
> + return -ENOMEM;
> gq->tx_ring = dma_alloc_coherent(ndev->dev.parent,
> sizeof(struct rswitch_ext_desc) *
> (gq->ring_size + 1), &gq->ring_dma, GFP_KERNEL);
...
