Tue, May 30, 2017 at 09:58:45AM CEST, leon@xxxxxxxxxx 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
>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.
I, as an app could include ib_user_verbs.h and do:
struct ib_uverbs_ex_create_qp something;
something.reserved1 = 0;
Than I won't compile, would I?
--
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
