On 10/31/2017 5:40 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 01:31:28PM +0200, Yishai Hadas wrote:
On 10/31/2017 7:08 AM, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 05:07:53PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 09:09:52PM +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
However, I don't think that kernel to libibverbs API should follow the
same path. The centralized entry points to the kernel provides better
enforcement and minimizes system call bloat.
How so? I didn't think selinux intersected with the CQs at all..
I've never worried about the # of verbs entries, we have so many
already.
Not SELinux enforcement, but various copy_{to|from}_user checks, unified
return values, easy folding in case of errors, e.t.c.
It is a matter of personal view and less technical thing. You prefer bazillion
entry points to the kernel and I think that such design good for user-space only,
and mostly not applicable for kernel<->user interfaces.
Even for the user area having a dedicated 'setter' per field might bring
some redundant overhead and limitation.
This will prevent the option from application to modify few fields
in one API and resulted in a system call per field.
And this is always the argument someone brings up - and as I said, I
don't see how it really applies to the CQ where we don't expect to
create them at a high rate.
The above argument could be issued also on SRQ/WQ which are not expected
to be changed in a high rate but uses the attr_mask notation with one
system call.
As this is currently the spirit of modify_xxx verbs in both user and
kernel, we may stay with that and consider this change for verbs2.0 all
around when it will come.
--
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
