> > Hi Steve,
> >
> > Your port mapper changes look good. I just have some minor comments.
> >
>
> Thanks for reviewing!
>
> > It appears the port mapping will fail, if the kernel port mapper is
> updated
> > with your changes but the user space port mapper isn't (ABI version
> > 3). Is there a reason why the error is silent in this case?
> >
>
> With testing, I see it works with kernel ABI4 and user ABI3. How do you
> see it failing exactly? Maybe I'm missing something.
>
I am referring to the following case, which anticipates mismatch between the kernel and user space port mapper:
> + /* If flags are required and we're not V4, then return a quite error */
> + if (pm_msg->flags && iwpm_user_ulib_version ==
> IWPM_UABI_VERSION_MIN) {
> + ret = -EINVAL;
> + goto query_mapping_error_nowarn;
> + }
> + if (iwpm_user_ulib_version > IWPM_UABI_VERSION_MIN) {
> + ret = ibnl_put_attr(skb, nlh, sizeof(u32), &pm_msg->flags,
> + IWPM_NLA_QUERY_FLAGS);
> + if (ret)
> + goto query_mapping_error;
> + }
> > > +/* iwarp port mapper message flags */ enum {
> > > +
> > > + /* Do not map the port for this IWPM request */
> > > + IWPM_FLAGS_NO_PORT_MAP = (1 << 0),
> >
> > Use BIT(0) for consistency within the patch
> >
>
> I've seen other maintainers suggest BIT() is obfuscating. Jason?
>
In another place in the patch you are using the BIT() macro, so my comment here is just a matter of consistency.
I don't have a strong opinion on which approach you choose.
> +enum iw_flags {
> +
> + /*
> + * This flag allows the iwcm and iwpmd to still advertise
> + * mappings but the real and mapped port numbers are the
> + * same. Further, iwpmd will not bind any user socket to
> + * reserve the port. This is required for soft iwarp
> + * to play in the port mapped iwarp space.
> + */
> + IW_F_NO_PORT_MAP = BIT(0),
> +};
> +
