On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 03:46:07PM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 07, 2019 at 06:44:46PM +0200, Shamir Rabinovitch wrote:
> > This patch set continue the cleanup started with Jason RFC patch. This
> > patch set clean only the ib_xxx creation APIs because those APIs do have
> > ib_udata.
> >
> > The final goal of this cleanup is to remove the dependency in the IB
> > code in the ib_xxx->uobject pointer as step toward shared ib_xxx
> > objects.
> >
> > Changelog:
> >
> > v3:
> > - Jason: Modify helper rdma_udata_to_drv_context
> > - Jason: Remove helper rdma_get_ucontext
> > - Christoph Hellwig: Leave ib_udata as center of the user/kernel
> > control flow
> >
> > v2:
> > - Jason: Add the ib_ucontext to the attr bundle and make sure
> > rdma_get_ucontext can't fail
> > - Jason: Add helper macro to the the driver's context out of
> > ib_udata
> > - Leon: Un needed tests in mlx4_ib_db_unmap_user
> >
> >
> > Shamir Rabinovitch (3):
> > IB/uverbs: add ib_ucontext to uverbs_attr_bundle sent from ioctl and
> > cmd flows
> > IB/verbs: add helper function rdma_udata_to_drv_context
> > IB/{hw,sw}: remove 'uobject->context' dependency in object creation
> > APIs
>
> Applied to for-next, with a number of revisions
> - Needed rebasing
> - Fixes compilation failures in HNS. Enable COMPILE_TEST to get all
> drivers turned on in .config
> - Minor re-formatting
> - Few missed conversion places in mlx5 raw qp and devx
>
> Please check over the patches I pushed to wip/jgg-for-next
Jason,
I only see the patch 1/3 on this branch.
Have I missed anything?
Thanks
>
> The next logical series is to add udata parameters to all the destroy
> functions and get rid of their references to udata->context. I would
> like to get to a point where uobj->context is never seen in any drivers,
> it will be really close after the destroy change.
>
> Also, it would make sense to me to now clean up all the ops signatures
> that pass both a ucontext and a udata - we should never pass both,
> just pass the udata. Would you do that rationalization too?
>
> Thanks,
> Jason
