- if (!(ndev->dev->attrs.device_cap_flags &
- IB_DEVICE_MEM_MGT_EXTENSIONS)) {
- dev_err(&ndev->dev->dev,
- "Memory registrations not supported.\n");
- goto out_free_pd;
- }
Why was this removed from here? I think it should live in
nvme_rdma_alloc_device.
Hi Sagi,
The idea was to move such capability check exactly inside event
handler nvme_rdma_add_one(), i.e. event comes, we firstly check
is this device capable or not and if not we do not take any other
branches but return with pr_err().
But device creation is called when we are completely sure that
we can create the device, i.e. if error happens inside
nvme_rdma_alloc_device() that will be something not nice, i.e.
-ENOMEM, but not more generic -ENOTSUPP.
Not sure I understand why this is not nice...
Of course that is only my sense of beauty :) I do not insist
and for sure can calmly move that check back.
I think we can keep it where it was.
+ ib_set_client_data(ndev->dev, &nvme_rdma_ib_client, ndev);
This however, should be done in the call-site after this completes
successfully.
Well, then nvme_rdma_alloc_device() and its brother nvme_rdma_free_dev()
(hm, brother's name should also end with *ice, will fix that) won't be
so similar, please take a look:
nvme_rdma_free_dev(...)
{
...
ib_set_client_data(ndev->dev, &nvme_rdma_ib_client, NULL);
...
}
nvme_rdma_alloc_device(...)
{
...
ib_set_client_data(ndev->dev, &nvme_rdma_ib_client, ndev);
...
}
So if _free_dev() does ib_set_client_data() then for the sake
of symmetry *_alloc_device() also does the same.
Makes sense.
--
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
