On 11/1/2017 8:06 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 07:06:05PM +0200, Yishai Hadas wrote:
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.
Yep, those perhaps should not have used the attr_mask scheme either
But they have it as this is current spirit in verbs.
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.
Well, there seem to be quite a lot of new API proposals now, and
stuffing each of them through some goofy comp_mask or attr_mask thing
seems like it is going to create a huge complex mess..
I don't agree to above statement, attr_mask is well defined and easy to
be used in modify_xxx verbs. It can clearly mark which attributes are
going to be modified similar to some flags attribute.
--
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
