On Mon, Dec 11, 2023 at 07:46:40PM +0200, Margolin, Michael wrote: > > On 12/11/2023 1:26 PM, 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 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 > > 0xffff can't practically be a valid PCI id in this context, As long as PCI subsystem doesn't declare 0xffff as invalid, we can't assume it too. Thanks
