On Thu, Oct 05, 2017 at 02:49:47PM +0200, Nelio Laranjeiro wrote:
[...]
> +struct mlx5_hrxq*
> +mlx5_priv_hrxq_get(struct priv *priv, uint8_t *rss_key, uint8_t rss_key_len,
> + uint64_t hash_fields, uint16_t queues[], uint16_t queues_n)
> +{
> + struct mlx5_hrxq *hrxq;
> +
> + LIST_FOREACH(hrxq, &priv->hrxqs, next) {
> + struct mlx5_ind_table_ibv *ind_tbl;
> +
> + if (hrxq->rss_key_len != rss_key_len)
> + continue;
> + if (memcmp(hrxq->rss_key, rss_key, rss_key_len))
> + continue;
> + if (hrxq->hash_fields != hash_fields)
> + continue;
> + ind_tbl = mlx5_priv_ind_table_ibv_get(priv, queues, queues_n);
> + if (!ind_tbl)
> + continue;
> + if (ind_tbl != hrxq->ind_table) {
> + mlx5_priv_ind_table_ibv_release(priv, ind_tbl);
As one hrxq can have only one ind_tbl, it looks unnecessary to increment refcnt
of ind_tbl. As long as a hrxq exist, its ind_tbl can't be destroyed. So, it's
safe. How about moving up this _release() outside of this if-clause and remove
_release() in _hrxq_release()?
However, it is logically flawless, so
Acked-by: Yongseok Koh <[email protected]>
Thanks
