On 21/01/2020 18:57, Yishai Hadas wrote: > On 1/21/2020 6:37 PM, Gal Pressman wrote: >> On 08/01/2020 20:05, Yishai Hadas wrote: >>> From: Michael Guralnik <michaelgur@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> >>> As part of adding a range of optional access flags that drivers need to >>> be able to accept, mask this range inside efa driver. >>> This will prevent the driver from failing when an access flag from >>> that range is passed. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Michael Guralnik <michaelgur@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> Signed-off-by: Yishai Hadas <yishaih@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> --- >>> drivers/infiniband/hw/efa/efa_verbs.c | 1 + >>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/hw/efa/efa_verbs.c >>> b/drivers/infiniband/hw/efa/efa_verbs.c >>> index 50c2257..b6b936c 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/infiniband/hw/efa/efa_verbs.c >>> +++ b/drivers/infiniband/hw/efa/efa_verbs.c >>> @@ -1370,6 +1370,7 @@ struct ib_mr *efa_reg_mr(struct ib_pd *ibpd, u64 start, >>> u64 length, >>> IB_ACCESS_LOCAL_WRITE | >>> (is_rdma_read_cap(dev) ? IB_ACCESS_REMOTE_READ : 0); >>> + access_flags &= ~IB_UVERBS_ACCESS_OPTIONAL_RANGE; >> >> Hi Yishai, >> access_flags should be masked with IB_ACCESS_OPTIONAL instead of >> IB_UVERBS_ACCESS_OPTIONAL_RANGE. >> > > You are talking from namespace point of view, right ? both have same value. > > If it's important, can you send some patch to replace ? I'll send a patch, thanks.
