On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 10:15:14AM +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> 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?
You are right, the good thing that in IB world, there is no direct usage
of these files and they are needed for rdma-core (libibverbs) library.
Thanks
>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
