> From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxx> > On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 09:14:14AM +0000, Konstantin Taranov wrote: > > > From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxx> On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at > > > 07:20:59AM -0700, Konstantin Taranov wrote: > > > > From: Konstantin Taranov <kotaranov@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > Implement allocation of DMA-mapped memory regions. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Konstantin Taranov <kotaranov@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > --- > > > > drivers/infiniband/hw/mana/device.c | 1 + > > > > drivers/infiniband/hw/mana/mr.c | 36 > > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > include/net/mana/gdma.h | 5 ++++ > > > > 3 files changed, 42 insertions(+) > > > > > > What is the point of doing this without supporting enough verbs to > > > allow a kernel ULP? > > > > > > > True, the proposed code is useless at this state. > > Nevertheless, mana_ib team aims to send kernel ULP patches after we > > are done with uverbs pathes (i.e., udata is not null). As this change > > does not conflict with the current effort, I decided to send this > > patch now. I can extend the series to make it more useful. > > > > Jason, could you suggest a minimal list of ib_device_ops methods, > > that includes get_dma_mr, which can be approved? > > Is there any chance you can send a single series to support a ULP. NVMe or > something like? Sure, I can. I will investigate the way to make get_dma_mr used with fewer changes. Generally, I am wondering what would be easier for reviewers. Should I try to send short patch series enabling one feature, or should I actually try to produce long patch series that enable a use-case consisting of several features? Konstantin
