> On 14 Jun 2021, at 09:25, Leon Romanovsky <leon@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 03:32:39AM +0000, Haakon Bugge wrote: >> >> >>> On 9 Jun 2021, at 12:40, Leon Romanovsky <leon@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, Jun 09, 2021 at 09:26:03AM +0000, Anand Khoje wrote: >>>> Hi Leon, >>> >>> Please don't do top-posting. >>> >>> >>>> >>>> The set_bit()/clear_bit() and enum ib_port_data_flags has been added as a device that can be used for future enhancements. >>>> Also, usage of set_bit()/clear_bit() ensures the operations on this bit is atomic. >>> >>> The bitfield variables are better suit this use case. >>> Let's don't overcomplicate code without the reason. >> >> The problem is always that people tend to build on what's in there. For example, look at the bitfields in rdma_id_private, tos_set, timeout_set, and min_rnr_timer_set. >> >> What do you think will happen when, let's say, rdma_set_service_type() and rdma_set_ack_timeout() are called in close proximity in time? There is no locking, and the RMW will fail intermittently. > > We are talking about device initialization flow that shouldn't be > performed in parallel to another initialization of same device, so the > comparison to rdma-cm is not valid here. I can agree to that. And it is probably not worthwhile to fix the bit-fields in rdma_id_private? Thxs, Håkon
