On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 10:58:45AM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 09:33:52AM +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> > Tue, May 30, 2017 at 09:15:58AM CEST, leon@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > >From: Yishai Hadas <yishaih@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > >Enable QP creation which is associated to underlay QP. This comes as a
> > >pre-patch for downstream patches in this series to enable flow steering
> > >from user space application on the underlay IPoIB QP.
> > >
> > >Signed-off-by: Yishai Hadas <yishaih@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >Reviewed-by: Maor Gottlieb <maorg@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >Signed-off-by: Leon Romanovsky <leon@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > >---
> >
> > [...]
> >
> >
> > >diff --git a/include/uapi/rdma/ib_user_verbs.h b/include/uapi/rdma/ib_user_verbs.h
> > >index 477d629f539d..422b20456975 100644
> > >--- a/include/uapi/rdma/ib_user_verbs.h
> > >+++ b/include/uapi/rdma/ib_user_verbs.h
> > >@@ -578,7 +578,7 @@ struct ib_uverbs_ex_create_qp {
> > > __u32 comp_mask;
> > > __u32 create_flags;
> > > __u32 rwq_ind_tbl_handle;
> > >- __u32 reserved1;
> > >+ __u32 associated_qpn;
> >
> > This breaks uapi...
>
> Not really, we are using comp_mask scheme to signal changes/predecessor
s/predecessor/enhancement
> of these structs. Users of this file and structs check comp_mask and
> access new fields only if they are exposed there.
>
> In this case, there are no users of reserved1 and hence it can be
> replace to the new field with corresponding comp_mask flag (IB_QP_CREATE_ASSOC_QPN)
> without worry of breakage.
>
> Thanks
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
