On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 06:09:28PM +0000, Mark Bloch wrote: > [ ... ] > >> mlx5_ib_dealloc_xrcd(devr->x1); > >> - mlx5_ib_destroy_cq(devr->c0); > >> - mlx5_ib_dealloc_pd(devr->p0); > >> + ib_destroy_cq(devr->c0); > >> + ib_dealloc_pd(devr->p0); > > > > and has been de-registered by this point. > > > > Calling ib_* functions on an unregistered device is not a good idea. > > > > Mark? > > Yep, I don't like it, any change to the create/destroy functions > will now need to take into account that:"Don't play with struct ib_device too much > as mlx5 does some funky stuff before the device is registered" > > Seems like a bad idea. > > > > > Jason > > > > Mark Reason for this is that follow patches will start use the restrack to figure if pd was created by user or not and this is used even in drivers such as mlx5. So not having restrack initialized is bad idea also. I can initialize the restrack here and skip the calls to the ib_x functions. Will this be acceptable ? I do think that it's bad idea that we have objects that are partially initialized and that when accessed by driver, driver need to be careful not to touch the uninitialized parts.
