On Fri, Feb 08, 2019 at 06:57:48AM +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > On Thu, Feb 07, 2019 at 01:36:22PM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 07, 2019 at 10:31:48PM +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > > > > > > That is a silly place to end up - there is no reason to use port == 0 > > > > here as invalid, it should be fixed. > > > > > > What exactly do you suggest to fix? > > > > > > If user provides "port", it will need to pass rdma_is_port_valid() check. > > > We have exactly zero drivers which know how to handle is_switch correctly. > > > > I do not want to see half implemented stuff, either follow the > > existing convention for port number and is_switch in the core code or > > delete the is_switch stuff. > > > > Since using -1 or something here is really trivial, that seesm like > > the right answer > > It is out of the scope of existing series, which is focused on per-ID > access. Maybe later, someone will find time to write code for imaginary flows > with zero value, especially for UAPI where allowance of not-tested/not-working > value (port == 0) can bring disaster later on. I was told a long time ago that there were vendors running embedded linux in their switches where port == 0 was valid. Perhaps some vendors will speak up about this? I don't know if it is true any longer and if it even applies in all port == 0 cases. Ira
