Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S966455AbcCPKgo (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 16 Mar 2016 06:36:44 -0400
Received: from mail-wm0-f49.google.com ([74.125.82.49]:37974 "EHLO
	mail-wm0-f49.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1752537AbcCPKgl (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 16 Mar 2016 06:36:41 -0400
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 11:36:38 +0100
From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>
To: oulijun <oulijun@huawei.com>
Cc: dledford@redhat.com, sean.hefty@intel.com, hal.rosenstock@gmail.com,
        davem@davemloft.net, jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com, jiri@mellanox.com,
        ogerlitz@mellanox.com, linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        gongyangming@huawei.com, xiaokun@huawei.com, tangchaofei@huawei.com,
        haifeng.wei@huawei.com, yisen.zhuang@huawei.com, yankejian@huawei.com,
        lisheng011@huawei.com, charles.chenxin@huawei.com, linuxarm@huawei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] infiniband: IB/hns: add Hisilicon RoCE support
Message-ID: <20160316103638.GB2254@nanopsycho.orion>
References: <1457692631-9290-1-git-send-email-oulijun@huawei.com>
 <1457692631-9290-2-git-send-email-oulijun@huawei.com>
 <20160311104239.GD3931@nanopsycho.orion>
 <56E9340E.3040207@huawei.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <56E9340E.3040207@huawei.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 3192
Lines: 117

Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 11:23:10AM CET, oulijun@huawei.com wrote:
>Hi Jiri Pirko, thanks your reviewing.
>sorry, I will send a new patch according to your reviews.
>
>On 2016/3/11 18:42, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 11:37:09AM CET, oulijun@huawei.com wrote:
>>> The driver for Hisilicon RoCE is a platform driver.
>>> The driver will support mulitple versions of hardware. Currently only "v1"
>>> for hip06 SOC is supported.
>>> The driver includes two parts: common driver and hardware-specific
>>> operations. hns_roce_v1_hw.c and hns_roce_v1_hw.h are files for
>>> hardware-specific operations only for v1 engine, and other files(.c and .h)
>>> for common algorithm and common hardware operations
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Lijun Ou <oulijun@huawei.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Wei Hu(Xavier) <xavier.huwei@huawei.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Znlong <zhaonenglong@huawei.com>
>> 
>> <snip>
>> 
>> I'm sorry to be nitpicking, but you still have style issues in your
>> code. I believe that for newly submitted code, this should be avoided. I
>> already pointed that out as a comment to your last version, but you
>> ignored it. So again, couple of examples:
>> 
>>> +struct ib_ah *hns_roce_create_ah(struct ib_pd *ibpd,
>>> +					struct ib_ah_attr *ah_attr)
>> 
>> <snip>	
>> 	
>>> +	ret = ib_get_cached_gid(ibpd->device, ah_attr->port_num,
>>> +			ah_attr->grh.sgid_index, &sgid, &gid_attr);
>> 
>> <snip>
>> 
>>> +int hns_roce_bitmap_alloc_range(
>>> +					struct hns_roce_bitmap *bitmap,
>>> +					int cnt, int align, u32 *obj)
>> 
>> <snip>
>> 
>>> +			pages =
>>> +				kmalloc(sizeof(*pages) * buf->nbufs,
>>> +					GFP_KERNEL);
>> 
>In v2, I consider that it will violate checkpatch if write as follows
>	pages = kmalloc(sizeof(*pages) * buf->nbufs,
>			GFP_KERNEL);

Why it would be problem for checkpatch? I bet it won't.


>so, I continue to have it.

I will continue to bash on your odd codingstyle. Please fix it!



>Now, I have used kmalloc_array instead of it. I will send new patch at soon.
>Again, i am sorry for my incorrect plan.
>
>> <snip>
>> 
>>> +		dev_err(dev,
>>> +			"CQ alloc.Failed to find cq buf addr.\n");
>> 
>> <snip>
>> 
>>> +	resp.qp_tab_size      = hr_dev->caps.num_qps;
>> 
>> <snip>
>> 
>>> +		buddy->bits[i] =
>>> +			kmalloc(s * sizeof(long), GFP_KERNEL);
>> 
>> 
>> and many, many others similar to this. Please fix this.
>> 
>> 
>> Also, I don't understand why you have "_" prefix for labels:
>> 
>>> +
>>> +_error_failed_register_device:
>>> +	hns_roce_engine_uninit(hr_dev);
>>> +
>>> +_error_failed_engine_init:
>>> +	hns_roce_cleanup_bitmap(hr_dev);
>>> +
>>> +_error_failed_setup_hca:
>>> +	hns_roce_cleanup_icm(hr_dev);
>>> +
>>> +_error_failed_init_icm:
>>> +	if (hr_dev->cmd_mod)
>>> +		hns_roce_cmd_use_polling(hr_dev);
>>> +
>>> +_error_failed_use_event:
>>> +	hns_roce_cleanup_eq_table(hr_dev);
>>> +
>>> +_error_failed_eq_tabel:
>>> +	hns_roce_cmd_cleanup(hr_dev);
>>> +
>>> +_error_failed_cmd_init:
>>> +	(void)hns_roce_engine_reset(hr_dev, 0);
>>> +
>>> +_error_failed_reset_engine:
>>> +	hns_roce_free_cfg(hr_dev);
>>> +
>>> +_error_failed_get_cfg:
>>> +	ib_dealloc_device(&hr_dev->ib_dev);
>>> +
>>> +	return ret;
>>> +}
>> 
>> .
>> 
>
>