On Tue, Nov 06, 2018 at 10:54:27AM +0200, Shamir Rabinovitch wrote: > Jason, down the road I need to remove uobject pointers from ib_xx > objects to allow sharing of those ib_xx objects. I can skip patch like > 'IB/verbs: destroy_wq verb need ib_udata' and use the ucontext from the > ib_wq->uobject->context but this will not allow sharing of ib_wq. This > series is focused in releasing the ib_pd from telling kernel/user on all > sort of ib_xx objects. But next series will push the ib_ucontext via the > ib_udata to allow me to release the rest of the ib_xx objects from the > dependency in the uobject->ucontext they have. Most of the other objects have very difficult problems when it comes to sharing (QP, SRQ, WQ, etc) as they have internal state that is hardware specific and hard to share. So I don't really expect patches to make those objects shareable anytime soon, and if we do, then they can use restrack, etc. > Do you still want to skip patches that add udata to destroy/modify ops? Any destroy really shouldn't have a udata without a really good reason - there should not be driver specific data with destroy. Objects, particularly shared objects, should not be storing things in the ucontext, as that mucks up the sharing. That is another reason why QP is very difficult to share as most of the drivers have per QP state in the uncontext.. So I prefer to not worry right now about anything beyond PD and MR. Jason
