Re: [PATCH v2 for-next 7/7] RDMA/hns: Optimize qp doorbell allocation flow

[Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>]

On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 04:14:36PM +0800, Weihang Li wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2020/2/19 8:52, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 05:08:40PM +0800, Weihang Li wrote:
> >> From: Xi Wang <wangxi11@huawei.com>
> >>
> >> Encapsulate the kernel qp doorbell allocation related code into 2
> >> functions: alloc_qp_db() and free_qp_db().
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Xi Wang <wangxi11@huawei.com>
> >> Signed-off-by: Weihang Li <liweihang@huawei.com>
> >>  drivers/infiniband/hw/hns/hns_roce_qp.c | 214 +++++++++++++++++---------------
> >>  1 file changed, 113 insertions(+), 101 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/hw/hns/hns_roce_qp.c b/drivers/infiniband/hw/hns/hns_roce_qp.c
> >> index ad34187..46785f1 100644
> >> +++ b/drivers/infiniband/hw/hns/hns_roce_qp.c
> >> @@ -844,6 +844,96 @@ static void free_qp_buf(struct hns_roce_dev *hr_dev, struct hns_roce_qp *hr_qp)
> >>  		free_rq_inline_buf(hr_qp);
> >>  }
> >>  
> >> +#define user_qp_has_sdb(hr_dev, init_attr, udata, resp, ucmd) \
> >> +		((hr_dev->caps.flags & HNS_ROCE_CAP_FLAG_SQ_RECORD_DB) && \
> >> +		udata->outlen >= sizeof(*resp) && \
> >> +		hns_roce_qp_has_sq(init_attr) && udata->inlen >= sizeof(*ucmd))
> >> +
> >> +#define user_qp_has_rdb(hr_dev, init_attr, udata, resp) \
> >> +		((hr_dev->caps.flags & HNS_ROCE_CAP_FLAG_RECORD_DB) && \
> >> +		udata->outlen >= sizeof(*resp) && \
> >> +		hns_roce_qp_has_rq(init_attr))
> >> +
> >> +#define kernel_qp_has_rdb(hr_dev, init_attr) \
> >> +		((hr_dev->caps.flags & HNS_ROCE_CAP_FLAG_RECORD_DB) && \
> >> +		hns_roce_qp_has_rq(init_attr))
> > 
> > static inline functions not defines please
> > 
> 
> OK, I will change them into inline functions.
> 
> > Also, these tests against inline and outlen look very strange. What
> > are they doing?
> > 
> > Jason
> >
> 
> These judgement about inlen and outlen is for compatibility reasons,
> previous discussions can be found at:
> 
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10172233/

Something is wrong, it should be testing the legnth using a
field_offset_off kind of scheme, not sizeof(*resp)

Jason