On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 08:03:32AM -0700, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On 10/21/19 7:09 AM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 20, 2019 at 07:10:27PM -0700, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > > diff --git a/include/rdma/ib_verbs.h b/include/rdma/ib_verbs.h
> > > index 6a47ba85c54c..e6c167d03aae 100644
> > > +++ b/include/rdma/ib_verbs.h
> > > @@ -4043,9 +4043,7 @@ static inline void ib_dma_unmap_sg_attrs(struct ib_device *dev,
> > > */
> > > static inline unsigned int ib_dma_max_seg_size(struct ib_device *dev)
> > > {
> > > - struct device_dma_parameters *p = dev->dma_device->dma_parms;
> > > -
> > > - return p ? p->max_segment_size : UINT_MAX;
> > > + return dma_get_max_seg_size(dev->dma_device);
> > > }
> >
> > Should we get rid of this wrapper?
>
> Hi Jason,
>
> In general I agree that getting rid of single line inline functions is good.
> In this case however I'd like to keep the wrapper such that RDMA ULP code
> does not have to deal with the choice between dev->dma_device and &dev->dev.
> From struct ib_device:
> /* Do not access @dma_device directly from ULP nor from HW drivers. */
> struct device *dma_device;
Do you think it is a mistake we have dma_device at all?
Can the modern dma framework let us make the 'struct ib_device' into a
full dma_device that is still connected to some PCI device?
Jason
