On Fri, Dec 24, 2021 at 06:55:41AM +0800, Yanjun Zhu wrote: > 在 2021/12/24 2:45, Leon Romanovsky 写道: > > On Thu, Dec 23, 2021 at 11:46:03PM +0800, Yanjun Zhu wrote: > > > 在 2021/12/21 10:48, Cheng Xu 写道: > > > > Signed-off-by: Cheng Xu <chengyou@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > --- > > > > include/uapi/rdma/erdma-abi.h | 49 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > 1 file changed, 49 insertions(+) > > > > create mode 100644 include/uapi/rdma/erdma-abi.h > > > > > > > > diff --git a/include/uapi/rdma/erdma-abi.h b/include/uapi/rdma/erdma-abi.h > > > > new file mode 100644 > > > > index 000000000000..6bcba10c1e41 > > > > --- /dev/null > > > > +++ b/include/uapi/rdma/erdma-abi.h > > > > @@ -0,0 +1,49 @@ > > > > +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: ((GPL-2.0 WITH Linux-syscall-note) OR Linux-OpenIB) */ > > > > +/* > > > > + * Copyright (c) 2020-2021, Alibaba Group. > > > > + */ > > > > + > > > > +#ifndef __ERDMA_USER_H__ > > > > +#define __ERDMA_USER_H__ > > > > + > > > > +#include <linux/types.h> > > > > + > > > > +#define ERDMA_ABI_VERSION 1 > > > > > > ERDMA_ABI_VERSION should be 2？ > > > > Why? > > > > This field is for rdma-core and we don't have erdma provider in that > > library yet. It always starts from 1 for new drivers. > Please check this link: > http://mail.spinics.net/lists/linux-rdma/msg63012.html OK, I still don't understand why. RXE case is different, because rdma-core already had broken RXE implementation, so this is why the version was incremented. > > Jason mentioned in this link: > > " > /* > * For 64 bit machines ABI version 1 and 2 are the same. Otherwise 32 > * bit machines require ABI version 2 which guarentees the user and > * kernel use the same ABI. > */ > " > > Zhu Yanjun > > > > Thanks >
