Sean Hefty wrote:
+ mutex_lock(&id_priv->handler_mutex);
+ if (id_priv->state == CMA_DESTROYING)
We should probably skip id_priv->state == CMA_DEVICE_REMOVAL as well.
OK
+ printk(KERN_ERR "addr change for device %s used by id %p, notifying\n",
Is KERN_ERR what we want here?
no, I think we can do well with warning or info level
+static int cma_netdev_callback(struct notifier_block *self, unsigned long
event, void *ctx)
+ mutex_lock(&lock);
+ list_for_each_entry(cma_dev, &dev_list, list)
+ list_for_each_entry(id_priv, &cma_dev->id_list, list) {
+ ret = cma_netdev_change(ndev, id_priv);
+ if (ret)
+ break;
Should this be goto (mutex_unlock) instead?
yes it would be better to have it this way
Or
_______________________________________________
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
