Re: [PATCH v9 11/22] IB/hns: Add IB device registration

[Leon Romanovsky]

On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 05:41:06PM +0800, Wei Hu (Xavier) wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2016/6/9 14:26, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> >On Wed, Jun 01, 2016 at 11:37:53PM +0800, Lijun Ou wrote:
> >>This patch registered IB device when loaded, and unregistered
> >>IB device when removed.
> >>
> >>Signed-off-by: Wei Hu <xavier.huwei@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>Signed-off-by: Nenglong Zhao <zhaonenglong@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>Signed-off-by: Lijun Ou <oulijun@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>---
> >>  drivers/infiniband/hw/hns/hns_roce_main.c | 46 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>  1 file changed, 46 insertions(+)
> >>
> >>diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/hw/hns/hns_roce_main.c b/drivers/infiniband/hw/hns/hns_roce_main.c
> >>index 7fb0d34..f179a7f 100644
> >>--- a/drivers/infiniband/hw/hns/hns_roce_main.c
> >>+++ b/drivers/infiniband/hw/hns/hns_roce_main.c
> >>@@ -62,6 +62,41 @@
> >>  #include "hns_roce_device.h"
> >>  #include "hns_roce_icm.h"
> >>+void hns_roce_unregister_device(struct hns_roce_dev *hr_dev)
> >You are not calling to this function in this patch.
> >
> >>+{
> >>+	ib_unregister_device(&hr_dev->ib_dev);
> >>+}
> >>+
> >>+int hns_roce_register_device(struct hns_roce_dev *hr_dev)
> >This function should be static.
> >
> >>+{
> >>+	int ret;
> >>+	struct hns_roce_ib_iboe *iboe = NULL;
> >>+	struct ib_device *ib_dev = NULL;
> >>+	struct device *dev = &hr_dev->pdev->dev;
> >>+
> >>+	iboe = &hr_dev->iboe;
> >>+
> >>+	ib_dev = &hr_dev->ib_dev;
> >>+	strlcpy(ib_dev->name, "hisi_%d", IB_DEVICE_NAME_MAX);
> >>+
> >>+	ib_dev->owner			= THIS_MODULE;
> >>+	ib_dev->node_type		= RDMA_NODE_IB_CA;
> >>+	ib_dev->dma_device		= dev;
> >>+
> >>+	ib_dev->phys_port_cnt		= hr_dev->caps.num_ports;
> >>+	ib_dev->local_dma_lkey		= hr_dev->caps.reserved_lkey;
> >>+	ib_dev->num_comp_vectors	= hr_dev->caps.num_comp_vectors;
> >>+	ib_dev->uverbs_abi_ver		= 1;
> >>+
> >>+	ret = ib_register_device(ib_dev, NULL);
> >>+	if (ret) {
> >>+		dev_err(dev, "ib_register_device failed!\n");
> >>+		return ret;
> >>+	}
> >>+
> >>+	return 0;
> >>+}
> >>+
> >>  int hns_roce_get_cfg(struct hns_roce_dev *hr_dev)
> >>  {
> >>  	int i;
> >>@@ -363,6 +398,17 @@ static int hns_roce_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >>  		goto error_failed_engine_init;
> >>  	}
> >>+	ret = hns_roce_register_device(hr_dev);
> >>+	if (ret) {
> >>+		dev_err(dev, "register_device failed!\n");
> >According to the current code, you will print this error together with
> >error line in hns_roce_register_device for the same failure.
> >
> >"ib_register_device failed!"
> >"register_device failed!"
> Hi, leon
>     In this patch [PATCH v9 11/22], there is only one error branch in
> funtion named hns_roce_register_device.
>     In the following patch [PATCH v9 13/22], we add more operation, there
> are more
>         than two error branch in this function as below.

Yes, and in all these error flows you already printed debug messages, your
"register_device failed" print is useless.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature