On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 1:25 AM Bob Pearson <rpearsonhpe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 3/24/21 12:07 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 11:52:19AM -0500, Bob Pearson wrote:
> >>>> +struct rxe_mw {
> >>>> + struct rxe_pool_entry pelem;
> >>>> + struct ib_mw ibmw;
> >>>> + struct rxe_qp *qp; /* type 2B only */
> >>>> + struct rxe_mr *mr;
> >>>> + spinlock_t lock;
> >>>> + enum rxe_mw_state state;
> >>>> + u32 access;
> >>>> + u64 addr;
> >>>> + u64 length;
> >>>> +};
> >>>
> >>> struct rxe_qp *qp; /* type 2B only */
> >>> struct rxe_mr *mr;
> >>> spinlock_t lock;
> >>> enum rxe_mw_state state;
> >>> u32 access;
> >>> u64 addr;
> >>> u64 length;
> >>>
> >>> The above member variables are not used in your commit. Why keep them
> >>> in this struct rxe_mw?
> >>>
> >>> Zhu Yanjun
> >>>
> >>
> >> There is more to come. The goal here is to implement MW and peeking ahead
> >> MWs need each of those fields. As soon as this change gets accepted I will start
> >> adding code to implement the MW verbs APIs.
> >
> > The requirement is to add things when you need them, so if these are
> > unused here they should move to the patch that requires them
> >
> > Jason
> >
> OK can do. I need to wait another day to see if Zhu is ready to accept the whole idea
> of renaming these things.
Thanks. I am fine with the idea of renaming.
Zhu Yanjun
> There are two other nits in this patch that I could change.
> There was one whitespace change that could come separately (n spaces -> tab) and Leon
> moved the MW into core since the first time I sent this in which requires reversing
> the order of the ibmw atruct and the pelem struct in mw. It has to change before the
> mw struct can actually be used. What do you think?
>
> bob
