On 11/28/2016 09:46 PM, Lino Sanfilippo wrote:
> Hi Markus,
>
> On 27.11.2016 18:59, Markus Böhme wrote:
>> Hello Lino,
>>
>> just some things barely worth mentioning:
>>
>
>>
>> I found a bunch of unused #defines in slic.h. I cannot judge if they are
>> worth keeping:
>>
>> SLIC_VRHSTATB_LONGE
>> SLIC_VRHSTATB_PREA
>> SLIC_ISR_IO
>> SLIC_ISR_PING_MASK
>> SLIC_GIG_SPEED_MASK
>> SLIC_GMCR_RESET
>> SLIC_XCR_RESET
>> SLIC_XCR_XMTEN
>> SLIC_XCR_PAUSEEN
>> SLIC_XCR_LOADRNG
>> SLIC_REG_DBAR
>> SLIC_REG_PING
>> SLIC_REG_DUMP_CMD
>> SLIC_REG_DUMP_DATA
>> SLIC_REG_WRHOSTID
>> SLIC_REG_LOW_POWER
>> SLIC_REG_RESET_IFACE
>> SLIC_REG_ADDR_UPPER
>> SLIC_REG_HBAR64
>> SLIC_REG_DBAR64
>> SLIC_REG_CBAR64
>> SLIC_REG_RBAR64
>> SLIC_REG_WRVLANID
>> SLIC_REG_READ_XF_INFO
>> SLIC_REG_WRITE_XF_INFO
>> SLIC_REG_TICKS_PER_SEC
>>
>> These device IDs are not used, either, but maybe it's good to keep them
>> for documentation purposes:
>>
>> PCI_SUBDEVICE_ID_ALACRITECH_1000X1_2
>> PCI_SUBDEVICE_ID_ALACRITECH_SES1001T
>> PCI_SUBDEVICE_ID_ALACRITECH_SEN2002XT
>> PCI_SUBDEVICE_ID_ALACRITECH_SEN2001XT
>> PCI_SUBDEVICE_ID_ALACRITECH_SEN2104ET
>> PCI_SUBDEVICE_ID_ALACRITECH_SEN2102ET
>>
>
> I left these defines in for both documentation and to avoid gaps in
> register ranges. I would like to keep this as it is.
Seems reasonable.
[...]
>>> +static int slic_init_tx_queue(struct slic_device *sdev)
>>> +{
>>> + struct slic_tx_queue *txq = &sdev->txq;
>>> + struct slic_tx_buffer *buff;
>>> + struct slic_tx_desc *desc;
>>> + int err;
>>> + int i;
>>
>> You could make i unsigned...
>>
>
>>> +
>>> + txq->len = SLIC_NUM_TX_DESCS;
>>> + txq->put_idx = 0;
>>> + txq->done_idx = 0;
>>> +
>>> + txq->txbuffs = kcalloc(txq->len, sizeof(*buff), GFP_KERNEL);
>>> + if (!txq->txbuffs)
>>> + return -ENOMEM;
>>> +
>>> + txq->dma_pool = dma_pool_create("slic_pool", &sdev->pdev->dev,
>>> + sizeof(*desc), SLIC_TX_DESC_ALIGN,
>>> + 4096);
>>> + if (!txq->dma_pool) {
>>> + err = -ENOMEM;
>>> + netdev_err(sdev->netdev, "failed to create dma pool\n");
>>> + goto free_buffs;
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + for (i = 0; i < txq->len; i++) {
>>
>> ...to fix a signed/unsigned comparison warning here, but...
>>
>>> + buff = &txq->txbuffs[i];
>>> + desc = dma_pool_zalloc(txq->dma_pool, GFP_KERNEL,
>>> + &buff->desc_paddr);
>>> + if (!desc) {
>>> + netdev_err(sdev->netdev,
>>> + "failed to alloc pool chunk (%i)\n", i);
>>> + err = -ENOMEM;
>>> + goto free_descs;
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + desc->hnd = cpu_to_le32((u32)(i + 1));
>>> + desc->cmd = SLIC_CMD_XMT_REQ;
>>> + desc->flags = 0;
>>> + desc->type = cpu_to_le32(SLIC_CMD_TYPE_DUMB);
>>> + buff->desc = desc;
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + return 0;
>>> +
>>> +free_descs:
>>> + while (i--) {
>>
>> ...this would require reworking this logic to prevent an endless loop,
>> so probably not worth bothering, considering that txq->len is well
>> within the positive signed range.
>
> AFAICS the logic does not have to be changed. The while loop will also work
> fine if "i" is unsigned.
>
My bad! Of course you are right.
Regards,
Markus
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
de...@linuxdriverproject.org
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
