On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 03:06:20PM +0800, Junxian Huang wrote:
> >> +enum hns_roce_congest_type_flags {
> >> + HNS_ROCE_CREATE_QP_FLAGS_DCQCN = 1 << 0,
> >> + HNS_ROCE_CREATE_QP_FLAGS_LDCP = 1 << 1,
> >> + HNS_ROCE_CREATE_QP_FLAGS_HC3 = 1 << 2,
> >> + HNS_ROCE_CREATE_QP_FLAGS_DIP = 1 << 3,
> >> +};
> >
> > Why are these bit flags if they are exclusive?
> >
>
> Our FW uses bit flags. Although there is no direct relationship between
> FW and ABI, but from the perspective of readability, bit flags are also
> used consistently here in ABI.
Don't do that in uapi.
> >> +enum hns_roce_create_qp_comp_mask {
> >> + HNS_ROCE_CREATE_QP_MASK_CONGEST_TYPE = 1 << 1,
> >
> > Why 1<<1 not 1<<0?
>
> This is to keep consistent with our internal ABI, there are some
> features not upstream yet.
Nope, pack them tightly. Don't keep an "internal ABI"
> >> @@ -114,6 +128,9 @@ struct hns_roce_ib_alloc_ucontext_resp {
> >> __u32 reserved;
> >> __u32 config;
> >> __u32 max_inline_data;
> >> + __u8 reserved0;
> >> + __u8 congest_type;
> >
> > Why this layout?
>
> Same as the 1<<1 issue, to keep consistent with our internal ABI.
Same answer
Jason
