On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 03:45:56PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 10:06:15AM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > From: Lior Nahmanson <liorna@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > This patch isolates DCI QP creation logic to separate function, so this
> > change will reduce complexity when adding new features to DCI QP without
> > interfering with other QP types.
> >
> > The code was copied from create_user_qp() while taking only DCI relevant bits.
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Meir Lichtinger <meirl@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Lior Nahmanson <liorna@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/qp.c | 157 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > 1 file changed, 157 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/qp.c b/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/qp.c
> > index 7a5f1eba60e3..65a380543f5a 100644
> > +++ b/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/qp.c
> > @@ -1974,6 +1974,160 @@ static int create_xrc_tgt_qp(struct mlx5_ib_dev *dev, struct mlx5_ib_qp *qp,
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
> > +static int create_dci(struct mlx5_ib_dev *dev, struct ib_pd *pd,
> > + struct mlx5_ib_qp *qp,
> > + struct mlx5_create_qp_params *params)
> > +{
>
> This is a huge amount of copying just to add 4 lines, why?
>
> There must be a better way to do this qp stuff.
>
> Why not put more stuff in _create_user_qp()?
Lior proposed it in original patch, but I didn't like it. It caused to
mix of various QP types and maze of "if () else ()" that are not applicable
one to another.
The huge _create_user_qp() is the reason why create_dci() is not small,
we simply had hard time to understand if specific HW bit is needed or
not in DCI flow.
My goal is to have small per-QP type specific functions that calls
to simple functions for very narrow scope.
Something like that:
static int create_dci(...)
{
...
configure_send_cq(..)
configure_recv_sq(..)
configure_srq(...)
...
}
static int create_user_qp(...)
{
...
configure_send_cq(..)
configure_recv_sq(..)
configure_srq(...)
...
}
Thanks
>
> Jason
