On 8/24/2021 3:44 AM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 02:24:28PM +0300, Mark Zhang wrote:diff --git a/include/uapi/rdma/rdma_netlink.h b/include/uapi/rdma/rdma_netlink.h index 79e6ca87d2e0..57f39d8fe434 100644 +++ b/include/uapi/rdma/rdma_netlink.h @@ -557,6 +557,8 @@ enum rdma_nldev_attr { RDMA_NLDEV_ATTR_STAT_OPCOUNTER_ENTRY, /* nested table */ RDMA_NLDEV_ATTR_STAT_OPCOUNTER_ENTRY_NAME, /* string */ RDMA_NLDEV_ATTR_STAT_OPCOUNTER_ENTRY_VALUE, /* u64 */ + RDMA_NLDEV_ATTR_STAT_OP_MODE_LIST, /* u8 */ + RDMA_NLDEV_ATTR_STAT_OP_MODE_LIST_SUPPORTED, /* u8 */See, here - shouldn't manipulation of MODE_LIST be done by a normal RDMA_NLDEV_CMD_STAT_SET with the new MODE_LIST array? This doesn't seem netlinky at all..
Both of them are flags and this is a "get" operation; "MODE_LIST" asks kernel to return currently enabled op-counters, "MODE_LIST_SUPPORTED" asks kernel to return supported op-counters. Maybe the macro name are not good?
