Subject: Re: Subject: [PATCH 2/6] bna: Brocade 10Gb Ethernet device driver

From: Stephen Hemminger <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2009 11:23:39 -0800

On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 22:03:14 -0700
Rasesh Mody <[email-masked]> wrote:

> +
> +void
> +bfa_timer_init(struct bfa_timer_mod_s *mod)
> +{
> +	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&mod->timer_q);
> +}
Why wrap this, you are only calling it once?

> +void
> +bfa_timer_beat(struct bfa_timer_mod_s *mod)
> +{
> +	struct list_head        *qh = &mod->timer_q;
> +	struct list_head        *qe, *qe_next;
> +	struct bfa_timer_s *elem;
> +	struct list_head         timedout_q;
> +
> +	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&timedout_q);
> +
> +	qe = bfa_q_next(qh);
> +
> +	while (qe != qh) {
> +		qe_next = bfa_q_next(qe);
> +
> +		elem = (struct bfa_timer_s *) qe;
> +		if (elem->timeout <= BFA_TIMER_FREQ) {
> +			elem->timeout = 0;
> +			list_del(&elem->qe);
> +			list_add_tail(&elem->qe, &timedout_q);
> +		} else {
> +			elem->timeout -= BFA_TIMER_FREQ;
> +		}
> +
> +		qe = qe_next;	/* go to next elem */
> +	}

Why not make list_for_each_entry()?

> +	/*
> +	 * Pop all the timeout entries
> +	 */
> +	while (!list_empty(&timedout_q)) {
> +		bfa_q_deq(&timedout_q, &elem);
> +		elem->timercb(elem->arg);
> +	}
> +}
> +
> +/**
> + * Should be called with lock protection
> + */
> +void
> +bfa_timer_begin(struct bfa_timer_mod_s *mod, struct bfa_timer_s *timer,
> +		    void (*timercb) (void *), void *arg, unsigned int timeout)
> +{
> +
> +	bfa_assert(timercb != NULL);
> +	bfa_assert(!bfa_q_is_on_q(&mod->timer_q, timer));
> +
> +	timer->timeout = timeout;
> +	timer->timercb = timercb;
> +	timer->arg = arg;
> +
> +	list_add_tail(&timer->qe, &mod->timer_q);
> +}
Isn't this the same as timer_setup()?

> +/**
> + * Should be called with lock protection
> + */
> +void
> +bfa_timer_stop(struct bfa_timer_s *timer)
> +{
> +	bfa_assert(!list_empty(&timer->qe));
> +
> +	list_del(&timer->qe);
> +}
Gratuitous wrapping?

--