Re: [patch v3 1/2] RDMA/srp: Add parse function for maximum initiator to target IU size

[Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@xxxxxxx>]

On 9/18/19 8:50 PM, Honggang LI wrote:
> diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/ulp/srp/ib_srp.c b/drivers/infiniband/ulp/srp/ib_srp.c
> index b5960351bec0..b829dab0df77 100644
> --- a/drivers/infiniband/ulp/srp/ib_srp.c
> +++ b/drivers/infiniband/ulp/srp/ib_srp.c
> @@ -3411,6 +3411,7 @@ enum {
>   	SRP_OPT_IP_SRC		= 1 << 15,
>   	SRP_OPT_IP_DEST		= 1 << 16,
>   	SRP_OPT_TARGET_CAN_QUEUE= 1 << 17,
> +	SRP_OPT_MAX_IT_IU_SIZE  = 1 << 18,
>   };
>   
>   static unsigned int srp_opt_mandatory[] = {
> @@ -3443,6 +3444,7 @@ static const match_table_t srp_opt_tokens = {
>   	{ SRP_OPT_QUEUE_SIZE,		"queue_size=%d"		},
>   	{ SRP_OPT_IP_SRC,		"src=%s"		},
>   	{ SRP_OPT_IP_DEST,		"dest=%s"		},
> +	{ SRP_OPT_MAX_IT_IU_SIZE,	"max_it_iu_size=%d"	},
>   	{ SRP_OPT_ERR,			NULL 			}
>   };
>   
> @@ -3736,6 +3738,14 @@ static int srp_parse_options(struct net *net, const char *buf,
>   			target->tl_retry_count = token;
>   			break;
>   
> +		case SRP_OPT_MAX_IT_IU_SIZE:
> +			if (match_int(args, &token) || token < 0) {
> +				pr_warn("bad maximum initiator to target IU size '%s'\n", p);
> +				goto out;
> +			}
> +			target->max_it_iu_size = token;
> +			break;
> +
>   		default:
>   			pr_warn("unknown parameter or missing value '%s' in target creation request\n",
>   				p);
> diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/ulp/srp/ib_srp.h b/drivers/infiniband/ulp/srp/ib_srp.h
> index b2861cd2087a..105b2bc6aa2f 100644
> --- a/drivers/infiniband/ulp/srp/ib_srp.h
> +++ b/drivers/infiniband/ulp/srp/ib_srp.h
> @@ -209,6 +209,7 @@ struct srp_target_port {
>   	u32			ch_count;
>   	u32			lkey;
>   	enum srp_target_state	state;
> +	uint32_t		max_it_iu_size;
>   	unsigned int		cmd_sg_cnt;
>   	unsigned int		indirect_size;
>   	bool			allow_ext_sg;

Something I forgot to mention last time: since this patch adds a new 
login parameter Documentation/ABI/stable/sysfs-driver-ib_srp should be 
updated. I don't have a strong opinion about whether that should happen 
through a separate patch or not. Since the code changes look fine to me:

Reviewed-by: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@xxxxxxx>