On Sat, Oct 15, 2022 at 06:37:04AM +0000, yangx.jy@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> 1) Define new atomic write request/completion in userspace.
> 2) Define new atomic write capability in userspace.
>
> Signed-off-by: Xiao Yang <yangx.jy@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> include/uapi/rdma/ib_user_verbs.h | 4 ++++
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/include/uapi/rdma/ib_user_verbs.h b/include/uapi/rdma/ib_user_verbs.h
> index 43672cb1fd57..237814815544 100644
> --- a/include/uapi/rdma/ib_user_verbs.h
> +++ b/include/uapi/rdma/ib_user_verbs.h
> @@ -466,6 +466,7 @@ enum ib_uverbs_wc_opcode {
> IB_UVERBS_WC_BIND_MW = 5,
> IB_UVERBS_WC_LOCAL_INV = 6,
> IB_UVERBS_WC_TSO = 7,
> + IB_UVERBS_WC_ATOMIC_WRITE = 9,
> };
Why is this 9? The following patch does
@@ -985,6 +986,7 @@ enum ib_wc_opcode {
IB_WC_REG_MR,
IB_WC_MASKED_COMP_SWAP,
IB_WC_MASKED_FETCH_ADD,
+ IB_WC_ATOMIC_WRITE = IB_UVERBS_WC_ATOMIC_WRITE,
Which corrupts the enum.
It should be like this:
+++ b/include/rdma/ib_verbs.h
@@ -983,10 +983,10 @@ enum ib_wc_opcode {
IB_WC_BIND_MW = IB_UVERBS_WC_BIND_MW,
IB_WC_LOCAL_INV = IB_UVERBS_WC_LOCAL_INV,
IB_WC_LSO = IB_UVERBS_WC_TSO,
+ IB_WC_ATOMIC_WRITE = IB_UVERBS_WC_ATOMIC_WRITE,
IB_WC_REG_MR,
IB_WC_MASKED_COMP_SWAP,
IB_WC_MASKED_FETCH_ADD,
- IB_WC_ATOMIC_WRITE = IB_UVERBS_WC_ATOMIC_WRITE,
/*
* Set value of IB_WC_RECV so consumers can test if a completion is a
* receive by testing (opcode & IB_WC_RECV).
+++ b/include/uapi/rdma/ib_user_verbs.h
@@ -466,7 +466,7 @@ enum ib_uverbs_wc_opcode {
IB_UVERBS_WC_BIND_MW = 5,
IB_UVERBS_WC_LOCAL_INV = 6,
IB_UVERBS_WC_TSO = 7,
- IB_UVERBS_WC_ATOMIC_WRITE = 9,
+ IB_UVERBS_WC_ATOMIC_WRITE = 8,
};
struct ib_uverbs_wc {
Jason
