Hello Simon-san,
> From: Simon Horman, Sent: Thursday, December 7, 2023 4:08 AM
>
> 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.
Thank you for your comments! I think so. So, I'll fix it on v4.
> 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?
I think so. I'll fix it.
Best regards,
Yoshihiro Shimoda
> >
> > 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);
>
> ...
