Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1420213 > unrolled thread

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

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [PATCH v9 11/22] IB/hns: Add IB device registration "Wei Hu (Xavier)" <xavier.huwei@huawei.com> - 2016-06-12 11:50 +0200
    Re: [PATCH v9 11/22] IB/hns: Add IB device registration Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org> - 2016-06-13 14:50 +0200
      Re: [PATCH v9 11/22] IB/hns: Add IB device registration "Wei Hu (Xavier)" <xavier.huwei@huawei.com> - 2016-06-17 03:30 +0200

#1420213 — Re: [PATCH v9 11/22] IB/hns: Add IB device registration

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@huawei.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Nenglong Zhao <zhaonenglong@hisilicon.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Lijun Ou <oulijun@huawei.com>
>> ---
>>   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.

  @@ -212,8 +402,27 @@ int hns_roce_register_device(struct hns_roce_dev *hr_dev)
  		goto error_failed_setup_mtu_gids;
  	}
  
	spin_lock_init(&iboe->lock);

	iboe->nb.notifier_call = hns_roce_netdev_event;
	ret = register_netdevice_notifier(&iboe->nb);
	if (ret) {
		dev_err(dev, "register_netdevice_notifier failed!\n");
		goto error_failed_setup_mtu_gids;
	}

	iboe->nb_inet.notifier_call = hns_roce_inet_event;
	ret = register_inetaddr_notifier(&iboe->nb_inet);
	if (ret) {
		dev_err(dev, "register inet addr notifier failed!\n");
		goto error_failed_register_inetaddr_notifier;
	}

  	return 0;
  
  error_failed_register_inetaddr_notifier:
	unregister_netdevice_notifier(&iboe->nb);

  error_failed_setup_mtu_gids:
  	ib_unregister_device(ib_dev);



     Regards
Wei Hu
>
>> +		goto error_failed_register_device;
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	return 0;
>> +
>> +error_failed_register_device:
>> +	hns_roce_engine_exit(hr_dev);
>> +
>>   error_failed_engine_init:
>>   	hns_roce_cleanup_bitmap(hr_dev);
>>   
>> -- 
>> 1.9.1
>>
>> --
>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
>> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1420796

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

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@huawei.com>
> >>Signed-off-by: Nenglong Zhao <zhaonenglong@hisilicon.com>
> >>Signed-off-by: Lijun Ou <oulijun@huawei.com>
> >>---
> >>  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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1424588

On 2016/6/13 20:46, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> 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@huawei.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Nenglong Zhao <zhaonenglong@hisilicon.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Lijun Ou <oulijun@huawei.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>   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.
Hi, leon
     We have fixed it.
     And Oulijun have sent PATCH V10. Thanks

Regards
Wei Hu

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web