On Mon, Nov 05, 2018 at 04:27:40PM +0200, Shamir Rabinovitch wrote: > On Mon, Nov 05, 2018 at 08:54:22AM +0200, Shamir Rabinovitch wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 04, 2018 at 02:20:51PM +0200, Shamir Rabinovitch wrote: > > > On Sun, Nov 04, 2018 at 10:36:32AM +0200, Shamir Rabinovitch wrote: > > > > On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 11:55:15AM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 02:42:42PM +0200, Shamir Rabinovitch wrote: > > [...] > > > > > Jason, pushing udata to wherever it was missing was not so bad as I > > thought so this part is OK. I only left with question around your > > request to use 'ib_x->uobject'. If it is OK with you I'd rather to > > switch those which only tell user/kernel to rdma_is_user_pd as was in > > the previous revision. > > > > Thanks > > Jason, Series #2 (pending on series #1) add ib_udata in ib_device > callbacks. I noticed that if I add those patches to series #1 I can use > ib_udata in almost all the places as you wanted. I have created and > tested this new patch set and it is on my github. I think it can solve > some of the issues you had with v3 of the patch set. Please tell me if > you like me to post this revised patch set here instead of fixing the > current patch set. I don't know if you should add udata to destroy... That is quite weird. It is important to keep things ordered - the userness of an object during creation is tested by the udata parameter, then the userness of that object should be checked by restack's is_user/or uobject for the rest of its lifetime. It is not good to assume udata to non-creation ops like modify or destroy implies anything about the userness of the object in the first place.. Anyhow, it seems fine to drop some of the udata patches into this series if using udata means less uses of is_user_pd... Jason
