Re: [PATCH net-next 02/12] net/mlx5: LAG, Refactor lag logic

[Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.lobakin@intel.com>]

From: Tariq Toukan <tariqt@nvidia.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2024 15:42:13 +0200

> From: Rongwei Liu <rongweil@nvidia.com>
> 
> Wrap the lag pf access into two new macros:
> 1. ldev_for_each()
> 2. ldev_for_each_reverse()
> The maximum number of lag ports and the index to `natvie_port_num`
> mapping will be handled by the two new macros.
> Users shouldn't use the for loop anymore.

[...]

> @@ -1417,6 +1398,26 @@ void mlx5_lag_add_netdev(struct mlx5_core_dev *dev,
>  	mlx5_queue_bond_work(ldev, 0);
>  }
>  
> +int get_pre_ldev_func(struct mlx5_lag *ldev, int start_idx, int end_idx)
> +{
> +	int i;
> +
> +	for (i = start_idx; i >= end_idx; i--)
> +		if (ldev->pf[i].dev)
> +			return i;
> +	return -1;
> +}
> +
> +int get_next_ldev_func(struct mlx5_lag *ldev, int start_idx)
> +{
> +	int i;
> +
> +	for (i = start_idx; i < MLX5_MAX_PORTS; i++)
> +		if (ldev->pf[i].dev)
> +			return i;
> +	return MLX5_MAX_PORTS;
> +}

Why aren't these two prefixed with mlx5?

> +
>  bool mlx5_lag_is_roce(struct mlx5_core_dev *dev)
>  {
>  	struct mlx5_lag *ldev;

[...]

>  
> +#define ldev_for_each(i, start_index, ldev) \
> +	for (int tmp = start_index; tmp = get_next_ldev_func(ldev, tmp), \
> +	     i = tmp, tmp < MLX5_MAX_PORTS; tmp++)
> +
> +#define ldev_for_each_reverse(i, start_index, end_index, ldev)      \
> +	for (int tmp = start_index, tmp1 = end_index; \
> +	     tmp = get_pre_ldev_func(ldev, tmp, tmp1), \
> +	     i = tmp, tmp >= tmp1; tmp--)

Same?

Thanks,
Olek