[ Removing Doug since all mail to him seems to be bouncing ]
> On Jun 20, 2017, at 2:40 PM, Leon Romanovsky <leon@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 02:23:21PM -0400, Chuck Lever wrote:
>>
>>> On Jun 20, 2017, at 2:03 PM, Leon Romanovsky <leon@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 11:43:56AM -0400, Chuck Lever wrote:
>>>> Hi Leon-
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Jun 20, 2017, at 3:32 AM, Leon Romanovsky <leon@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 11:26:40AM -0400, Chuck Lever wrote:
>>>>>> The fourth parameter of the module_param_named macro is a set of
>>>>>> file permissions. Passing 0 there means that module parameter is
>>>>>> not created and that adding "options ib_core force_mr=1" to a
>>>>>> modprobe.conf file has no effect.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The default setting of rdma_rw_force_mr continues to be 0, or false.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fixes: a060b5629ab0 ("IB/core: generic RDMA READ/WRITE API")
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> Hi Doug-
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This doesn't seem appropriate to go through Bruce's tree for 4.13.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Last discussion didn't seem to conclude with full consensus.
>>>>>> Probably people don't care enough one way or another. But I'd like
>>>>>> to see this get fixed if there aren't strong objections. Would you
>>>>>> take it for 4.13?
>>>>>
>>>>> I care and believe that it should be removed from exposure to users.
>>>>> The variable force_mr should be leaved in the code for the debug,
>>>>> but module_param should be removed.
>>>>
>>>> I don't understand the technical grounds of your objection.
>>>> Why is
>>>>
>>>> options mlx4_core internal_err_reset=0
>>>>
>>>> acceptable, but
>>>>
>>>> options ib_core force_mr=1
>>>>
>>>> not?
>>>
>>> That mlx4 variable was exposed before I started to follow after
>>> Mellanox's submissions.
>>>
>>> The force_mr parameter is for debug of new ULP and/or conversion of
>>> existing ULP to RW API. This is not very common situation and it is
>>> for the developers and not for the users.
>>
>> No disagreement on that, but that's still not an argument
>> not to expose it. What is the risk, as you see it?
>
> It will be "marked" as UAPI and we won't be able to change it,
> which IMHO bad for the debug. It also invites users to set it
> and in perfect world, we should test our HCAs with this flag
> on and off, because curious user can set it.
We have loads of legacy debugging interfaces.
And yes, ULP developers should be aware of it and test with
both settings.
I'm not convinced any of this is a problem for this particular
setting. However, I guess the thing for you to do is propose a
patch.
> Thanks
>
>>
>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> drivers/infiniband/core/rw.c | 2 +-
>>>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/core/rw.c b/drivers/infiniband/core/rw.c
>>>>>> index dbfd854..1cc8f07 100644
>>>>>> --- a/drivers/infiniband/core/rw.c
>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/infiniband/core/rw.c
>>>>>> @@ -23,7 +23,7 @@ enum {
>>>>>> };
>>>>>>
>>>>>> static bool rdma_rw_force_mr;
>>>>>> -module_param_named(force_mr, rdma_rw_force_mr, bool, 0);
>>>>>> +module_param_named(force_mr, rdma_rw_force_mr, bool, 0644);
>>>>>> MODULE_PARM_DESC(force_mr, "Force usage of MRs for RDMA READ/WRITE operations");
>>>>>>
>>>>>> /*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Chuck Lever
>>
>> --
>> Chuck Lever
>>
>>
>>
--
Chuck Lever
--
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
