lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Jan]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/2] net/mlx4_core: clean up cq_res_start_move_to()
From
Date
On Tue, 2014-01-14 at 08:47 +0200, Jack Morgenstein wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Jan 2014 14:01:18 +0100
> Paul Bolle <pebolle@tiscali.nl> wrote:
>
> > + } else {
> > + /* state == RES_CQ_HW */
> > + if (r->com.state != RES_CQ_ALLOCATED)
>
> if (state != RES_CQ_HW || r->com.state != RES_CQ_ALLOCATED)
> to protect against any bad calls to this function
> (although I know that currently there are none).

So we end up with
} else if (state != RES_CQ_HW || r->com.state != RES_CQ_ALLOCATED) {
err = -EINVAL;
} else {
err = 0;
}

don't we? Which is fine with me, as GCC still is then able to correctly
analyze this function.

> This also preserves the behavior of the switch statement.
>
> > err = -EINVAL;
> > - }
> > + else
> > + err = 0;
> > + }
> >
> > - if (!err) {
> > - r->com.from_state = r->com.state;
> > - r->com.to_state = state;
> > - r->com.state = RES_CQ_BUSY;
> > - if (cq)
> > - *cq = r;
> > - }
> > + if (!err) {
> > + r->com.from_state = r->com.state;
> > + r->com.to_state = state;
> > + r->com.state = RES_CQ_BUSY;
>
> Please keep the "if" here. Protects against (future) bad calls.
>
> > + *cq = r;
> > }

There seems to be a school of thought that says it's better to trigger
an Oops if a programming error is made (in this case by passing a NULL
cq) then silently handle that (future) programming error and make
debugging harder. But, even it that school of thought really exists,
this is up to you. Besides, it's only a triviality I added to my
patches.

Thanks for the review! I hope to send in a v2 of my patches shortly.


Paul Bolle



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-01-14 13:01    [W:0.090 / U:1.324 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site