On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 10:51:25AM -0700, Michael Chan wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 10:33 AM Leon Romanovsky <l...@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 09:31:33AM -0700, Michael Chan wrote:
> > > On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 12:37 AM Leon Romanovsky <l...@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, Apr 11, 2021 at 08:18:14PM -0400, Michael Chan wrote:
> > > > > Add a new helper function __bnxt_free_one_vf_rep() to free one VF rep.
> > > > > We also reintialize the VF rep fields to proper initial values so that
> > > > > the function can be used without freeing the VF rep data structure.
> > > > > This
> > > > > will be used in subsequent patches to free and recreate VF reps after
> > > > > error recovery.
> > > > >
> > > > > Reviewed-by: Edwin Peer <edwin.p...@broadcom.com>
> > > > > Reviewed-by: Sriharsha Basavapatna
> > > > > <sriharsha.basavapa...@broadcom.com>
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Michael Chan <michael.c...@broadcom.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/bnxt/bnxt_vfr.c | 21
> > > > > ++++++++++++++-----
> > > > > 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/bnxt/bnxt_vfr.c
> > > > > b/drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/bnxt/bnxt_vfr.c
> > > > > index b5d6cd63bea7..a4ac11f5b0e5 100644
> > > > > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/bnxt/bnxt_vfr.c
> > > > > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/bnxt/bnxt_vfr.c
> > > > > @@ -288,6 +288,21 @@ void bnxt_vf_reps_open(struct bnxt *bp)
> > > > > bnxt_vf_rep_open(bp->vf_reps[i]->dev);
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > +static void __bnxt_free_one_vf_rep(struct bnxt *bp, struct
> > > > > bnxt_vf_rep *vf_rep)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > + if (!vf_rep)
> > > > > + return;
> > > >
> > > > How can it be NULL if you check that vf_rep != NULL when called to
> > > > __bnxt_free_one_vf_rep() ?
> > > >
> > >
> > > For this patch, the if (!vf_rep) check here is redundant. But it is
> > > needed in the next patch (patch 5) that calls this function from
> > > bnxt_vf_reps_free() in a different context. Thanks.
> >
> > So add it in the patch that needs it.
> >
>
> As stated in the changelog, we added more code to make this function
> more general and usable from another context. The check for !vf_rep
> is part of that. In my opinion, I think it is ok to keep it here
> given that the intent of this patch is to create a more general
> function. Thanks.
I disagreed, but given the fact that Dave already merged this series, it
doesn't matter anymore.
Thanks
