On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 05:41:06PM +0800, Wei Hu (Xavier) wrote:

On 2016/6/9 14:26, Leon Romanovsky wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Jun 01, 2016 at 11:37:53PM +0800, Lijun Ou wrote:

quoted

This patch registered IB device when loaded, and unregistered
IB device when removed.

Signed-off-by: Wei Hu <redacted>
Signed-off-by: Nenglong Zhao <zhaonenglong-C8/M+/jPZTeaMJb+Lgu22Q@public.gmane.org>
Signed-off-by: Lijun Ou <redacted>
---
 drivers/infiniband/hw/hns/hns_roce_main.c | 46 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 46 insertions(+)

diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/hw/hns/hns_roce_main.c b/drivers/infiniband/hw/hns/hns_roce_main.c
index 7fb0d34..f179a7f 100644
--- a/drivers/infiniband/hw/hns/hns_roce_main.c
+++ b/drivers/infiniband/hw/hns/hns_roce_main.c

@@ -62,6 +62,41 @@
 #include "hns_roce_device.h"
 #include "hns_roce_icm.h"
+void hns_roce_unregister_device(struct hns_roce_dev *hr_dev)

You are not calling to this function in this patch.

quoted

+{
+	ib_unregister_device(&hr_dev->ib_dev);
+}
+
+int hns_roce_register_device(struct hns_roce_dev *hr_dev)

This function should be static.

quoted

+{
+	int ret;
+	struct hns_roce_ib_iboe *iboe = NULL;
+	struct ib_device *ib_dev = NULL;
+	struct device *dev = &hr_dev->pdev->dev;
+
+	iboe = &hr_dev->iboe;
+
+	ib_dev = &hr_dev->ib_dev;
+	strlcpy(ib_dev->name, "hisi_%d", IB_DEVICE_NAME_MAX);
+
+	ib_dev->owner			= THIS_MODULE;
+	ib_dev->node_type		= RDMA_NODE_IB_CA;
+	ib_dev->dma_device		= dev;
+
+	ib_dev->phys_port_cnt		= hr_dev->caps.num_ports;
+	ib_dev->local_dma_lkey		= hr_dev->caps.reserved_lkey;
+	ib_dev->num_comp_vectors	= hr_dev->caps.num_comp_vectors;
+	ib_dev->uverbs_abi_ver		= 1;
+
+	ret = ib_register_device(ib_dev, NULL);
+	if (ret) {
+		dev_err(dev, "ib_register_device failed!\n");
+		return ret;
+	}
+
+	return 0;
+}
+
 int hns_roce_get_cfg(struct hns_roce_dev *hr_dev)
 {
 	int i;

@@ -363,6 +398,17 @@ static int hns_roce_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
 		goto error_failed_engine_init;
 	}
+	ret = hns_roce_register_device(hr_dev);
+	if (ret) {
+		dev_err(dev, "register_device failed!\n");

According to the current code, you will print this error together with
error line in hns_roce_register_device for the same failure.

"ib_register_device failed!"
"register_device failed!"

Hi, leon
    In this patch [PATCH v9 11/22], there is only one error branch in
funtion named hns_roce_register_device.
    In the following patch [PATCH v9 13/22], we add more operation, there
are more
        than two error branch in this function as below.

Yes, and in all these error flows you already printed debug messages, your
"register_device failed" print is useless.