On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 01:29:33PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 04:39:26PM +0300, Matan Barak wrote:
> >
> > +static int ib_device_allocate_idrs(struct ib_device *device)
> > +{
> > + spin_lock_init(&device->idr_lock);
> > + idr_init(&device->idr);
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +
>
> > + ret = ib_device_allocate_idrs(device);
> > + if (ret) {
> > + pr_warn("Couldn't allocate IDRs device %s with driver model\n",
> > + device->name);
> > + ib_cache_cleanup_one(device);
> > + goto out;
>
> Eh? Can't happen, don't over design stuff like this. Return void from
> ib_device_allocate_idrs
Right,
I'll do.
>
> > +static struct ib_uobject *idr_read_uobj(int id, struct ib_ucontext *context,
> > + int nested)
>
> What chance is there to get rid of 'nested' ? If you want to use a new
> locking model, I'm wondering if we should trial it with uverbs???
It is removed in our next version.
>
> > +struct ib_pd *idr_read_pd(int pd_handle, struct ib_ucontext *context)
> > +{
> > + return idr_read_obj(pd_handle, context, 0);
> > +}
>
> All this stuff needs a type check. Something needs to confirm that
> 'pd_handle' is in fact a pd. This was being done before with the split
> IDRs.
>
> I'd also suggest that the uobj restructuring be completed a dedicated
> series.
>
> It looks like all approaches require this sort of stuff, and perhaps it could be
> merged??
>
> I didn't look at the locking in any of this stuff, maybe once you finish
> it up.
I think that the best way will be to wait for the next version, because we
reworked locking approach and removed all these idr_read.../idr_write..
calls.
>
> Jason
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
