On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 10:26 AM, Yishai Hadas <yishaih@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 7/12/2018 11:53 PM, Or Gerlitz wrote: >> On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 2:10 PM, Leon Romanovsky <leon@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> From: Yishai Hadas <yishaih@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> Use the PRM size including the reserved when working with the FTE >>> match data. >> is this actually a bug fix? > No, it's some requirement from the new API to enable forward compatible > support without changing the kernel code. ok, but >>> Also drop some driver checks around the match criteria leaving the work >>> for firmware to enable forward compatibility for future bits there. >> not following, > Same as for the 'reserved' field but also for extending the 'match criteria' > field with new bits without changing the kernel. -- we need a clear memo as part of your change-logs and/or cover-letter/s that explains the overall approach/design for doing-things-without-changing-the-kernel, does this exist? the arch/approach need not be deciphered from the code or change logs snapshots but rather stated clearly. -- 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
