Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>@@ -1865,6 +1863,15 @@ static void ib_mad_recv_done_handler(str
>> recv->header.recv_wc.recv_buf.mad = &recv->mad.mad;
>> recv->header.recv_wc.recv_buf.grh = &recv->grh;
>>
>>+ /* update our lmc cache with port info smps */
>>+ if ((recv->mad.mad.mad_hdr.mgmt_class == IB_MGMT_CLASS_SUBN_LID_ROUTED
>>||
>>+ recv->mad.mad.mad_hdr.mgmt_class ==
>>IB_MGMT_CLASS_SUBN_DIRECTED_ROUTE)
>>+ && (recv->mad.mad.mad_hdr.attr_id == IB_SMP_ATTR_PORT_INFO)
>>+ && (recv->mad.mad.mad_hdr.method == IB_MGMT_METHOD_SET))
>>+ {
>>+ atomic_set(&port_priv->port_lmc, recv->mad.smp.data[34] & 0x7);
>>+ }
>>+
>> if (atomic_read(&qp_info->snoop_count))
>> snoop_recv(qp_info, &recv->header.recv_wc, IB_MAD_SNOOP_RECVS);
>>
>
>
> Why is this an atomic?
I thought there might be a race between this and where we read the lmc
(rcv_has_same_gid)
> The comment does not seem to tell us anything useful. Remove it?
> These 8 lines seem to violate coding style rules in at least 3 different
> ways::)
>
if ((recv->mad.mad.mad_hdr.mgmt_class == IB_MGMT_CLASS_SUBN_LID_ROUTED
||
recv->mad.mad.mad_hdr.mgmt_class ==
IB_MGMT_CLASS_SUBN_DIRECTED_ROUTE)
&& (recv->mad.mad.mad_hdr.attr_id == IB_SMP_ATTR_PORT_INFO)
&& (recv->mad.mad.mad_hdr.method == IB_MGMT_METHOD_SET))
atomic_set(&port_priv->port_lmc, recv->mad.smp.data[34] & 0x7);
is that better?
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general
To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
