On Mon, Dec 11, 2023 at 12:35:34PM +0200, Margolin, Michael wrote: > > On 12/11/2023 10:10 AM, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > > CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the content is safe. > > > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 07, 2023 at 02:27:48PM +0000, Michael Margolin wrote: > >> Add EFA driver uapi definitions and register a new query MR method that > >> currently returns the physical PCI buses' IDs the device is using to > >> reach the MR. Update admin definitions and efa-abi accordingly. > >> > >> Reviewed-by: Anas Mousa <anasmous@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> Reviewed-by: Firas Jahjah <firasj@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> Signed-off-by: Michael Margolin <mrgolin@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> --- > >> drivers/infiniband/hw/efa/efa.h | 5 +- > >> .../infiniband/hw/efa/efa_admin_cmds_defs.h | 31 ++++++++ > >> drivers/infiniband/hw/efa/efa_com_cmd.c | 6 ++ > >> drivers/infiniband/hw/efa/efa_com_cmd.h | 4 + > >> drivers/infiniband/hw/efa/efa_main.c | 5 ++ > >> drivers/infiniband/hw/efa/efa_verbs.c | 77 +++++++++++++++++++ > >> include/uapi/rdma/efa-abi.h | 19 +++++ > >> 7 files changed, 146 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > <...> > > > >> + /* > >> + * Mask indicating which fields have valid values > >> + * 0 : recv_pci_bus_id > >> + * 1 : rdma_read_pci_bus_id > >> + * 2 : rdma_recv_pci_bus_id > >> + */ > >> + u8 validity; > > <...> > > > >> #define EFA_GID_SIZE 16 > >> +#define EFA_INVALID_PCI_BUS_ID 0xffff > > Is 0xffff value guaranteed by PCI subsystem to be invalid? Why don't you > > provide "validity" field to userspace instead? > > The 0xffff value in only used internally in the driver to indicate an > invalid id and isn't exposed to userspace. For userspace there is a > validity field as you suggested: > > + return uverbs_copy_to(attrs, > EFA_IB_ATTR_QUERY_MR_RESP_PCI_BUS_ID_VALIDITY, > + &pci_bus_id_validity, > sizeof(pci_bus_id_validity)); So please rely on your EFA_GET(&cmd_completion.validity, EFA_ADMIN_XXX_PCI_BUS_ID) checks when you fill pci_bus_id_validity and not on 0xffff value which can be valid from PCI perspective. Thanks > > > Thanks >
