On 05/01/2022 09:55, Wen Gu wrote:
> On 2022/1/5 3:54 pm, dust.li wrote:
>
>>> - if (rc)
>>> + if (rc) {
>>> + spin_lock_bh(lgr_lock);
>>> + if (!list_empty(&lgr->list))
>>> + list_del_init(&lgr->list);
>>> + spin_unlock_bh(lgr_lock);
>>> + __smc_lgr_terminate(lgr, true);
>>
>> What about adding a smc_lgr_terminate() wrapper and put list_del_init()
>> and __smc_lgr_terminate() into it ?
>
> Adding a new wrapper is a good idea. But I think the logic here is relatively simple.
> So instead of wrapping them, I coded them like what smc_lgr_cleanup_early() does.
It might look cleaner with the following changes:
- adopt smc_lgr_cleanup_early() to take only an lgr as parameter and remove the call to smc_conn_free()
- change smc_conn_abort() (which is the only caller of smc_lgr_cleanup_early() right now), always
call smc_conn_free() and if (local_first) additionally call smc_lgr_cleanup_early()
(hold a local copy of the lgr for this call)
- finally call smc_lgr_cleanup_early(lgr) from smc_conn_create()
This should be the same processing, but the smc_conn_free() is moved to smc_conn_abort() where
it looks to be a better place for this call. And smc_lgr_cleanup_early() takes only care of an lgr.
What do you think? Did I miss something?
