On Thu, Nov 02, 2017 at 08:02:47PM +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > Here we assumed that the verbs layer will only call down to us to
> > destroy a valid SRQ. If an SRQ has been created, then the srq_tbl
> > should exist. I can add a check here if that's not behaviour we
> > should rely on.
>
> By saying "verbs layer", are you referring to libibverbs or IB/core?
>
IB/core. Looking at core/verbs.c, it seems like the parameters are
assumed to be good. I'm unclear on who is responsible for ensuring
or checking for good inputs, kernel clients, IB/core, or the driver.
> > > > +int pvrdma_modify_srq(struct ib_srq *ibsrq, struct ib_srq_attr *attr,
> > > > + enum ib_srq_attr_mask attr_mask, struct ib_udata *udata)
> > > > +{
> > > > + struct pvrdma_srq *vsrq = to_vsrq(ibsrq);
> > > > + union pvrdma_cmd_req req;
> > > > + struct pvrdma_cmd_modify_srq *cmd = &req.modify_srq;
> > > > + struct pvrdma_dev *dev = to_vdev(ibsrq->device);
> > > > + int ret;
> > > > +
> > > > + /* No support for resizing SRQs. */
> > >
> > > Better to write that you support, so future additions to ib_srq_attr_mask
> > > won't need to change your code.
> > >
> >
> > I'm a little unclear on what you mean here. Do you mean that we
> > should explicitly check for the only attribute we support
> > (IB_SRQ_LIMIT) and fail otherwise?
>
> Yes, it will ensure that your driver doesn't get untested input.
>
Sure, I will do that then.
--
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
