Small fixes for redundant checks

PATCH Superseded Jεan Sacren 2 participants 8 messages Oct 19, 2021 – Oct 21, 2021

Subsystems (3)

Networking Network drivers QLogic QL4xxx Ethernet driver

lore

Share & tools

lore

Jεan Sacren

author

2021-10-19 06:27 UTC #0 lore raw

cover Small fixes for redundant checks

From: Jean Sacren <[email protected]>

This series fixes some redundant checks of certain variables and expressions.

Jean Sacren (2):
net: qed_ptp: fix redundant check of rc and against -EINVAL
net: qed_dev: fix redundant check of rc and against -EINVAL

 drivers/net/ethernet/qlogic/qed/qed_dev.c | 35 +++++++++++++----------
 drivers/net/ethernet/qlogic/qed/qed_ptp.c | 12 ++++----
 2 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)

Jεan Sacren

author

2021-10-19 06:26 UTC #1 lore raw

PATCH 1/2 net: qed_ptp: fix redundant check of rc and against -EINVAL

From: Jean Sacren <[email protected]>

We should first check rc alone and then check it against -EINVAL to avoid repeating the same operation.

With this change, we could also use constant 0 for return.

Signed-off-by Jean Sacren <[email protected]>

---
 drivers/net/ethernet/qlogic/qed/qed_ptp.c | 12 +++++++-----
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

drivers/net/ethernet/qlogic/qed/qed_ptp.c +7 -5

index 2c62d732e5c2..c927ff409109 100644
@@ -52,9 +52,9 @@ static int qed_ptp_res_lock(struct qed_hwfn *p_hwfn, struct qed_ptt *p_ptt)
 	qed_mcp_resc_lock_default_init(&params, NULL, resource, true);
 
 	rc = qed_mcp_resc_lock(p_hwfn, p_ptt, &params);
-	if (rc && rc != -EINVAL) {
-		return rc;
-	} else if (rc == -EINVAL) {
+	if (rc) {
+		if (rc != -EINVAL)
+			return rc;
 		/* MFW doesn't support resource locking, first PF on the port
 		 * has lock ownership.
 		 */

@@ -63,12 +63,14 @@ static int qed_ptp_res_lock(struct qed_hwfn *p_hwfn, struct qed_ptt *p_ptt)
 
 		DP_INFO(p_hwfn, "PF doesn't have lock ownership\n");
 		return -EBUSY;
-	} else if (!rc && !params.b_granted) {
+	}
+
+	if (!params.b_granted) {
 		DP_INFO(p_hwfn, "Failed to acquire ptp resource lock\n");
 		return -EBUSY;
 	}
 
-	return rc;
+	return 0;
 }
 
 static int qed_ptp_res_unlock(struct qed_hwfn *p_hwfn, struct qed_ptt *p_ptt)

Simon Horman

reviewer

2021-10-20 08:48 UTC #2 lore raw

Re: [PATCH net-next 1/2] net: qed_ptp: fix redundant check of rc and against -EINVAL

Quoted 30 lines · Jεan Sacren

From: Jean Sacren <[email protected]>

We should first check rc alone and then check it against -EINVAL to avoid repeating the same operation.

With this change, we could also use constant 0 for return.

Signed-off-by Jean Sacren <[email protected]>

---
 drivers/net/ethernet/qlogic/qed/qed_ptp.c | 12 +++++++-----
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

drivers/net/ethernet/qlogic/qed/qed_ptp.c +3 -3

index 2c62d732e5c2..c927ff409109 100644
@@ -52,9 +52,9 @@ static int qed_ptp_res_lock(struct qed_hwfn *p_hwfn, struct qed_ptt *p_ptt)
 	qed_mcp_resc_lock_default_init(&params, NULL, resource, true);
 
 	rc = qed_mcp_resc_lock(p_hwfn, p_ptt, &params);
-	if (rc && rc != -EINVAL) {
-		return rc;
-	} else if (rc == -EINVAL) {
+	if (rc) {
+		if (rc != -EINVAL)
+			return rc;
 		/* MFW doesn't support resource locking, first PF on the port
 		 * has lock ownership.
 		 */

drivers/net/ethernet/qlogic/qed/qed_ptp.c static int qed_ptp_res_lock(struct qed_hwfn *p_hwfn, struct qed_ptt *p_ptt) · line 68

Quoted 7 lines

drivers/net/ethernet/qlogic/qed/qed_ptp.c +3 -1

@@ -63,12 +63,14 @@ static int qed_ptp_res_lock(struct qed_hwfn *p_hwfn, struct qed_ptt *p_ptt)
 
 		DP_INFO(p_hwfn, "PF doesn't have lock ownership\n");
 		return -EBUSY;
-	} else if (!rc && !params.b_granted) {
+	}
+
+	if (!params.b_granted) {

Can it be the case where the condition above is met and !rc is false? If so your patch seems to have changed the logic of this function.

Quoted 10 lines

drivers/net/ethernet/qlogic/qed/qed_ptp.c +1 -1

 		DP_INFO(p_hwfn, "Failed to acquire ptp resource lock\n");
 		return -EBUSY;
 	}
 
-	return rc;
+	return 0;
 }
 
 static int qed_ptp_res_unlock(struct qed_hwfn *p_hwfn, struct qed_ptt *p_ptt)

Jεan Sacren

author

2021-10-21 07:35 UTC #3 lore raw

Re: [PATCH net-next 1/2] net: qed_ptp: fix redundant check of rc and against -EINVAL

From: Simon Horman <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2021 10:48:35 +0200

Quoted 33 lines · Jεan Sacren

Quoted 31 lines

From: Jean Sacren <[email protected]>

We should first check rc alone and then check it against -EINVAL to avoid repeating the same operation.

With this change, we could also use constant 0 for return.

Signed-off-by Jean Sacren <[email protected]>

---
 drivers/net/ethernet/qlogic/qed/qed_ptp.c | 12 +++++++-----
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

drivers/net/ethernet/qlogic/qed/qed_ptp.c +3 -3

index 2c62d732e5c2..c927ff409109 100644
@@ -52,9 +52,9 @@ static int qed_ptp_res_lock(struct qed_hwfn *p_hwfn, struct qed_ptt *p_ptt)
 	qed_mcp_resc_lock_default_init(&params, NULL, resource, true);
 
 	rc = qed_mcp_resc_lock(p_hwfn, p_ptt, &params);
-	if (rc && rc != -EINVAL) {
-		return rc;
-	} else if (rc == -EINVAL) {
+	if (rc) {
+		if (rc != -EINVAL)
+			return rc;
 		/* MFW doesn't support resource locking, first PF on the port
 		 * has lock ownership.
 		 */

@@ -63,12 +63,14 @@ static int qed_ptp_res_lock(struct qed_hwfn *p_hwfn, struct qed_ptt *p_ptt)

Quoted 9 lines

drivers/net/ethernet/qlogic/qed/qed_ptp.c static int qed_ptp_res_lock(struct qed_hwfn *p_hwfn, struct qed_ptt *p_ptt) · line 68
Quoted 6 lines
drivers/net/ethernet/qlogic/qed/qed_ptp.c +3 -1
 		DP_INFO(p_hwfn, "PF doesn't have lock ownership\n");
 		return -EBUSY;
-	} else if (!rc && !params.b_granted) {
+	}
+
+	if (!params.b_granted) {
Can it be the case where the condition above is met and !rc is false? If so your patch seems to have changed the logic of this function.

Mr. Horman,

I'm so much appreciative to you for the review. I'm so sorry this patch is wrong. I redid the patch. Could you please help me review it?

I did verify at the point where we check (!params.b_granted), !rc is always true. Earlier when we check rc alone, it has to be 0 to let it reach the point where we check (!params.b_granted). If it is not 0, it will hit one of the returns in the branch.

I'll add the following text in the changelog to curb the confusion I incur. What do you think?

We should also remove the check of !rc in (!rc && !params.b_granted) since it is always true.

// diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/qlogic/qed/qed_ptp.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/qlogic/qed/qed_ptp.c // index 2c62d732e5c2..4e1b741ebb46 100644
// --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/qlogic/qed/qed_ptp.c
// +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/qlogic/qed/qed_ptp.c
// @@ -52,23 +52,27 @@ static int qed_ptp_res_lock(struct qed_hwfn *p_hwfn, struct qed_ptt *p_ptt)
// qed_mcp_resc_lock_default_init(&params, NULL, resource, true);
//
// rc = qed_mcp_resc_lock(p_hwfn, p_ptt, &params);
// - if (rc && rc != -EINVAL) {
// + if (rc) {
// + if (rc == -EINVAL) {
// + /* MFW doesn't support resource locking, first PF on the port
// + * has lock ownership.
// + */
// + if (p_hwfn->abs_pf_id < p_hwfn->cdev->num_ports_in_engine)
// + return 0;
// +
// + DP_INFO(p_hwfn, "PF doesn't have lock ownership\n");
// + return -EBUSY;
// + }
// +
// return rc;
// - } else if (rc == -EINVAL) {
// - /* MFW doesn't support resource locking, first PF on the port
// - * has lock ownership.
// - */
// - if (p_hwfn->abs_pf_id < p_hwfn->cdev->num_ports_in_engine)
// - return 0;
// + }
//
// - DP_INFO(p_hwfn, "PF doesn't have lock ownership\n");
// - return -EBUSY;
// - } else if (!rc && !params.b_granted) {
// + if (!params.b_granted) {

//  		DP_INFO(p_hwfn, "Failed to acquire ptp resource lock\n");
//  		return -EBUSY;
//  	}

//
// - return rc;
// + return 0;
// }
//
// static int qed_ptp_res_unlock(struct qed_hwfn *p_hwfn, struct qed_ptt *p_ptt)

Simon Horman

reviewer Reviewed-by

2021-10-21 10:47 UTC #4 lore raw

Re: [PATCH net-next 1/2] net: qed_ptp: fix redundant check of rc and against -EINVAL

Quoted 55 lines · Jεan Sacren

From: Simon Horman <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2021 10:48:35 +0200
Quoted 33 lines · Jεan Sacren
Quoted 31 lines
From: Jean Sacren <[email protected]>
We should first check rc alone and then check it against -EINVAL to avoid repeating the same operation.
With this change, we could also use constant 0 for return.
Signed-off-by Jean Sacren <[email protected]>
---
 drivers/net/ethernet/qlogic/qed/qed_ptp.c | 12 +++++++-----
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
drivers/net/ethernet/qlogic/qed/qed_ptp.c +3 -3
index 2c62d732e5c2..c927ff409109 100644
@@ -52,9 +52,9 @@ static int qed_ptp_res_lock(struct qed_hwfn *p_hwfn, struct qed_ptt *p_ptt)
 	qed_mcp_resc_lock_default_init(&params, NULL, resource, true);
 
 	rc = qed_mcp_resc_lock(p_hwfn, p_ptt, &params);
-	if (rc && rc != -EINVAL) {
-		return rc;
-	} else if (rc == -EINVAL) {
+	if (rc) {
+		if (rc != -EINVAL)
+			return rc;
 		/* MFW doesn't support resource locking, first PF on the port
 		 * has lock ownership.
 		 */
@@ -63,12 +63,14 @@ static int qed_ptp_res_lock(struct qed_hwfn *p_hwfn, struct qed_ptt *p_ptt)
 
Quoted 9 lines
drivers/net/ethernet/qlogic/qed/qed_ptp.c static int qed_ptp_res_lock(struct qed_hwfn *p_hwfn, struct qed_ptt *p_ptt) · line 68
Quoted 6 lines
drivers/net/ethernet/qlogic/qed/qed_ptp.c +3 -1
 		DP_INFO(p_hwfn, "PF doesn't have lock ownership\n");
 		return -EBUSY;
-	} else if (!rc && !params.b_granted) {
+	}
+
+	if (!params.b_granted) {
Can it be the case where the condition above is met and !rc is false? If so your patch seems to have changed the logic of this function.
Mr. Horman,
I'm so much appreciative to you for the review. I'm so sorry this patch is wrong. I redid the patch. Could you please help me review it?
I did verify at the point where we check (!params.b_granted), !rc is always true. Earlier when we check rc alone, it has to be 0 to let it reach the point where we check (!params.b_granted). If it is not 0, it will hit one of the returns in the branch.

Quoted 5 lines

I'll add the following text in the changelog to curb the confusion I incur. What do you think?
We should also remove the check of !rc in (!rc && !params.b_granted) since it is always true.

Thanks I see that now, and I agree that your patch doesn't change the logic of the code (as far as I can tell).

Reviewed-by Simon Horman <[email protected]>

Jεan Sacren

author

2021-10-19 06:26 UTC #5 lore raw

PATCH 2/2 net: qed_dev: fix redundant check of rc and against -EINVAL

In reply to Jεan Sacren

From: Jean Sacren <[email protected]>

We should first check rc alone and then check it against -EINVAL to avoid repeating the same operation multiple times.

Signed-off-by Jean Sacren <[email protected]>

---
 drivers/net/ethernet/qlogic/qed/qed_dev.c | 35 +++++++++++++----------
 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)

drivers/net/ethernet/qlogic/qed/qed_dev.c +20 ~~-15~~

index 18f3bf7c4dfe..fe8bdb4523b5 100644
@@ -3987,30 +3987,35 @@ static int qed_hw_get_resc(struct qed_hwfn *p_hwfn, struct qed_ptt *p_ptt)
 				       QED_RESC_LOCK_RESC_ALLOC, false);
 
 	rc = qed_mcp_resc_lock(p_hwfn, p_ptt, &resc_lock_params);
-	if (rc && rc != -EINVAL) {
-		return rc;
-	} else if (rc == -EINVAL) {
+	if (rc) {
+		if (rc != -EINVAL)
+			return rc;
+
 		DP_INFO(p_hwfn,
 			"Skip the max values setting of the soft resources since the resource lock is not supported by the MFW\n");
-	} else if (!rc && !resc_lock_params.b_granted) {
+	}
+
+	if (!resc_lock_params.b_granted) {
 		DP_NOTICE(p_hwfn,
 			  "Failed to acquire the resource lock for the resource allocation commands\n");
 		return -EBUSY;
-	} else {
-		rc = qed_hw_set_soft_resc_size(p_hwfn, p_ptt);
-		if (rc && rc != -EINVAL) {
+	}
+
+	rc = qed_hw_set_soft_resc_size(p_hwfn, p_ptt);
+	if (rc) {
+		if (rc != -EINVAL) {
 			DP_NOTICE(p_hwfn,
 				  "Failed to set the max values of the soft resources\n");
 			goto unlock_and_exit;
-		} else if (rc == -EINVAL) {
-			DP_INFO(p_hwfn,
-				"Skip the max values setting of the soft resources since it is not supported by the MFW\n");
-			rc = qed_mcp_resc_unlock(p_hwfn, p_ptt,
-						 &resc_unlock_params);
-			if (rc)
-				DP_INFO(p_hwfn,
-					"Failed to release the resource lock for the resource allocation commands\n");
 		}
+
+		DP_INFO(p_hwfn,
+			"Skip the max values setting of the soft resources since it is not supported by the MFW\n");
+		rc = qed_mcp_resc_unlock(p_hwfn, p_ptt,
+					 &resc_unlock_params);
+		if (rc)
+			DP_INFO(p_hwfn,
+				"Failed to release the resource lock for the resource allocation commands\n");
 	}
 
 	rc = qed_hw_set_resc_info(p_hwfn);

Simon Horman

reviewer

2021-10-20 08:47 UTC #6 lore raw

Re: [PATCH net-next 2/2] net: qed_dev: fix redundant check of rc and against -EINVAL

Quoted 21 lines · Jεan Sacren

From: Jean Sacren <[email protected]>
We should first check rc alone and then check it against -EINVAL to avoid repeating the same operation multiple times.
Signed-off-by Jean Sacren <[email protected]>
---
 drivers/net/ethernet/qlogic/qed/qed_dev.c | 35 +++++++++++++----------
 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
drivers/net/ethernet/qlogic/qed/qed_dev.c +0 -3
index 18f3bf7c4dfe..fe8bdb4523b5 100644
@@ -3987,30 +3987,35 @@ static int qed_hw_get_resc(struct qed_hwfn *p_hwfn, struct qed_ptt *p_ptt)
 				       QED_RESC_LOCK_RESC_ALLOC, false);
 
 	rc = qed_mcp_resc_lock(p_hwfn, p_ptt, &resc_lock_params);
-	if (rc && rc != -EINVAL) {
-		return rc;
-	} else if (rc == -EINVAL) {

drivers/net/ethernet/qlogic/qed/qed_dev.c static int qed_hw_get_resc(struct qed_hwfn *p_hwfn, struct qed_ptt *p_ptt) · line 3998

Quoted 10 lines

drivers/net/ethernet/qlogic/qed/qed_dev.c +7 -1

+	if (rc) {
+		if (rc != -EINVAL)
+			return rc;
+
 		DP_INFO(p_hwfn,
 			"Skip the max values setting of the soft resources since the resource lock is not supported by the MFW\n");
-	} else if (!rc && !resc_lock_params.b_granted) {
+	}
+
+	if (!resc_lock_params.b_granted) {

Can it be the case where the condition above is met and !rc is false? If so your patch seems to have changed the logic of this function.

Quoted 9 lines

drivers/net/ethernet/qlogic/qed/qed_dev.c +3 -3

 		DP_NOTICE(p_hwfn,
 			  "Failed to acquire the resource lock for the resource allocation commands\n");
 		return -EBUSY;
-	} else {
-		rc = qed_hw_set_soft_resc_size(p_hwfn, p_ptt);
-		if (rc && rc != -EINVAL) {
+	}
+
+	rc = qed_hw_set_soft_resc_size(p_hwfn, p_ptt);

drivers/net/ethernet/qlogic/qed/qed_dev.c static int qed_hw_get_resc(struct qed_hwfn *p_hwfn, struct qed_ptt *p_ptt) · line 4009

Quoted 10 lines

drivers/net/ethernet/qlogic/qed/qed_dev.c +2 -5

+	if (rc) {
+		if (rc != -EINVAL) {
 			DP_NOTICE(p_hwfn,
 				  "Failed to set the max values of the soft resources\n");
 			goto unlock_and_exit;
-		} else if (rc == -EINVAL) {
-			DP_INFO(p_hwfn,
-				"Skip the max values setting of the soft resources since it is not supported by the MFW\n");
-			rc = qed_mcp_resc_unlock(p_hwfn, p_ptt,
-						 &resc_unlock_params);

nit: it looks like the two lines above would now fit on one.

Quoted 16 lines

drivers/net/ethernet/qlogic/qed/qed_dev.c +8 -3

-			if (rc)
-				DP_INFO(p_hwfn,
-					"Failed to release the resource lock for the resource allocation commands\n");
 		}
+
+		DP_INFO(p_hwfn,
+			"Skip the max values setting of the soft resources since it is not supported by the MFW\n");
+		rc = qed_mcp_resc_unlock(p_hwfn, p_ptt,
+					 &resc_unlock_params);
+		if (rc)
+			DP_INFO(p_hwfn,
+				"Failed to release the resource lock for the resource allocation commands\n");
 	}
 
 	rc = qed_hw_set_resc_info(p_hwfn);

Jεan Sacren

author

2021-10-21 07:36 UTC #7 lore raw

Re: [PATCH net-next 2/2] net: qed_dev: fix redundant check of rc and against -EINVAL

From: Simon Horman <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2021 10:47:17 +0200

Quoted 28 lines · Jεan Sacren

Quoted 26 lines

From: Jean Sacren <[email protected]>

We should first check rc alone and then check it against -EINVAL to avoid repeating the same operation multiple times.

Signed-off-by Jean Sacren <[email protected]>

---
 drivers/net/ethernet/qlogic/qed/qed_dev.c | 35 +++++++++++++----------
 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)

drivers/net/ethernet/qlogic/qed/qed_dev.c +4 -3

index 18f3bf7c4dfe..fe8bdb4523b5 100644
@@ -3987,30 +3987,35 @@ static int qed_hw_get_resc(struct qed_hwfn *p_hwfn, struct qed_ptt *p_ptt)
 				       QED_RESC_LOCK_RESC_ALLOC, false);
 
 	rc = qed_mcp_resc_lock(p_hwfn, p_ptt, &resc_lock_params);
-	if (rc && rc != -EINVAL) {
-		return rc;
-	} else if (rc == -EINVAL) {
+	if (rc) {
+		if (rc != -EINVAL)
+			return rc;
+
 		DP_INFO(p_hwfn,

Quoted 8 lines

drivers/net/ethernet/qlogic/qed/qed_dev.c static int qed_hw_get_resc(struct qed_hwfn *p_hwfn, struct qed_ptt *p_ptt) · line 3998
Quoted 5 lines
drivers/net/ethernet/qlogic/qed/qed_dev.c +3 -1
 			"Skip the max values setting of the soft resources since the resource lock is not supported by the MFW\n");
-	} else if (!rc && !resc_lock_params.b_granted) {
+	}
+
+	if (!resc_lock_params.b_granted) {
Can it be the case where the condition above is met and !rc is false? If so your patch seems to have changed the logic of this function.

Mr. Horman,

I'm so much appreciative to you for the review. I'm so sorry this patch is wrong. I redid the patch. Could you please help me review it?

I'll add the following text in the changelog to curb the confusion I incur. What do you think?

We should also remove the check of !rc in this expression since it is always true:

        (!rc && !resc_lock_params.b_granted)

[...]

Quoted 4 lines

drivers/net/ethernet/qlogic/qed/qed_dev.c static int qed_hw_get_resc(struct qed_hwfn *p_hwfn, struct qed_ptt *p_ptt) · line 4009
Quoted 2 lines
drivers/net/ethernet/qlogic/qed/qed_dev.c +0 -2
-			rc = qed_mcp_resc_unlock(p_hwfn, p_ptt,
-						 &resc_unlock_params);
nit: it looks like the two lines above would now fit on one.

Absolutely. I'll put these two lines together as one.

I'd be very much grateful if you could help me review both patches. I'll respin the whole series and resubmit as v2 upon your review.

Thank you!

// diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/qlogic/qed/qed_dev.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/qlogic/qed/qed_dev.c // index 18f3bf7c4dfe..44b0d4b42bc3 100644
// --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/qlogic/qed/qed_dev.c
// +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/qlogic/qed/qed_dev.c
// @@ -3987,29 +3987,33 @@ static int qed_hw_get_resc(struct qed_hwfn *p_hwfn, struct qed_ptt *p_ptt)
// QED_RESC_LOCK_RESC_ALLOC, false);
//
// rc = qed_mcp_resc_lock(p_hwfn, p_ptt, &resc_lock_params);
// - if (rc && rc != -EINVAL) {
// - return rc;
// - } else if (rc == -EINVAL) {
// - DP_INFO(p_hwfn,
// - "Skip the max values setting of the soft resources since the resource lock is not supported by the MFW\n");
// - } else if (!rc && !resc_lock_params.b_granted) {
// - DP_NOTICE(p_hwfn,
// - "Failed to acquire the resource lock for the resource allocation commands\n");
// - return -EBUSY;
// + if (rc) {
// + if (rc == -EINVAL)
// + DP_INFO(p_hwfn,
// + "Skip the max values setting of the soft resources since the resource lock is not supported by the MFW\n");
// + else
// + return rc;
// } else {
// - rc = qed_hw_set_soft_resc_size(p_hwfn, p_ptt);
// - if (rc && rc != -EINVAL) {
// + if (!resc_lock_params.b_granted) {
// DP_NOTICE(p_hwfn,
// - "Failed to set the max values of the soft resources\n");
// - goto unlock_and_exit;
// - } else if (rc == -EINVAL) {
// - DP_INFO(p_hwfn,
// - "Skip the max values setting of the soft resources since it is not supported by the MFW\n");
// - rc = qed_mcp_resc_unlock(p_hwfn, p_ptt,
// - &resc_unlock_params);
// - if (rc)
// + "Failed to acquire the resource lock for the resource allocation commands\n");
// + return -EBUSY;
// + }
// +
// + rc = qed_hw_set_soft_resc_size(p_hwfn, p_ptt);
// + if (rc) {
// + if (rc == -EINVAL) {
// DP_INFO(p_hwfn,
// - "Failed to release the resource lock for the resource allocation commands\n");
// + "Skip the max values setting of the soft resources since it is not supported by the MFW\n");
// + rc = qed_mcp_resc_unlock(p_hwfn, p_ptt, &resc_unlock_params);
// + if (rc)
// + DP_INFO(p_hwfn,
// + "Failed to release the resource lock for the resource allocation commands\n");
// + } else {
// + DP_NOTICE(p_hwfn,
// + "Failed to set the max values of the soft resources\n");
// + goto unlock_and_exit;
// + }
// }
// }
//