Re: [PATCH v4 0/4] figure uverbs/kernel ib_pd w/o using ib_pd uobject

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 08:46:48AM +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 09:58:44PM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 05:15:15PM +0200, Shamir Rabinovitch wrote:
> > > This change has 2 steps. First step is to change the resource tracker
> > > so it will not use ib_x uobject pointer to figure if ib_x object was
> > > created by uverbs/kernel. The second step is to use the resource
> > > tracker ability to tell if ib_pd was created by uverbs/kernel and
> > > replace every place in the code where the code test for valid ib_pd
> > > uobject pointer just to tell if the ib_pd was created by uverbs/kernel.
> > >
> > > This series is the first step toward releasing the code from the dependency
> > > in the uobject pointer in the ib_pd. This change is required before we can
> > > move to shared ib_pd model.
> > >
> > > Changelog:
> > > v2:
> > >   * Patch 1: Comments from Jason & Leon
> > >    - Fix bool assign
> > >    - Add rdma_restrack_kadd, rdma_restrack_uadd
> > >    - Remove res_is_user
> > >    - Fix rdma_is_kernel_res
> > >   * Patch 2: Comments from Jason
> > >    - Fix rdma_is_user_pd
> > >   * Patch 3: Comments from Jason to add cleanup patch
> > >   * Patch 4: Comments from Jason which include the missing patch 3
> > > v3:
> > >   * Patch 1: Add patch to fix mlx5_core issue where restrack was not
> > >      initialized for some ib_x objects allocated by the driver.
> > >   * Patch 5: Fixed hns build issue reported by kbuild
> > > v4:
> > >   * Patch 3: Extend the use of udata follow comments from Jason
> > >      on patch 4
> > >   * Patch 4: Follow the change in patch 3, this now became more
> > >      focused on the ib_x destroy where udata is not available.
> > >
> > > Shamir Rabinovitch (4):
> > >   RDMA/restrack: resource-tracker should not use uobject pointers
> > >   IB/hw: cleanup of incorrect pd->uobject usage
> >
> > I've applied these two to for-next, with the below modifications.
> >
> 
> Don't we learn lately that bool in struct is not cool anymore?
> 
> Thanks,

Leon sorry for the dumb questions but can you elaborate a bit about the
above statement you made ?

Thanks



[Index of Archives]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Photo]     [Yosemite News]     [Yosemite Photos]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]

  Powered by Linux