On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 05:04:47PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Thu, Sep 03, 2020 at 10:38:56AM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > > From: Alex Vesker <valex@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > sw_owner_v2 will replace sw_owner for future devices, this means > > that if sw_owner_v2 is set sw_owner should be ignored and DM > > allocation is required for sw_owner_v2 devices to function. > > > > Signed-off-by: Alex Vesker <valex@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@xxxxxxxxxx> > > drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/main.c | 4 +++- > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/main.c b/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/main.c > > index 99dbef0bccbc..8963b806ad19 100644 > > +++ b/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/main.c > > @@ -2343,7 +2343,9 @@ static inline int check_dm_type_support(struct mlx5_ib_dev *dev, > > return -EPERM; > > > > if (!(MLX5_CAP_FLOWTABLE_NIC_RX(dev->mdev, sw_owner) || > > - MLX5_CAP_FLOWTABLE_NIC_TX(dev->mdev, sw_owner))) > > + MLX5_CAP_FLOWTABLE_NIC_TX(dev->mdev, sw_owner) || > > + MLX5_CAP_FLOWTABLE_NIC_RX(dev->mdev, sw_owner_v2) || > > + MLX5_CAP_FLOWTABLE_NIC_TX(dev->mdev, sw_owner_v2))) > > return -EOPNOTSUPP; > > Shouldn't user space ask for MLX5_IB_UAPI_DM_TYPE_STEERING_SW_V2_ICM > types too? For sw_owner_v2 devices, we will return exactly same type of DM, so there is no need for a new one. The change is to allow creation of such DM in addition to existing sw_owner devices. > > What happens if old user space runs on a new device? Old userspace will have sw_owner_v2 cap enabled and will get DM as before. The patch diff is hard to read but the end result will be. if (!(MLX5_CAP_FLOWTABLE_NIC_RX(dev->mdev, sw_owner) || MLX5_CAP_FLOWTABLE_NIC_TX(dev->mdev, sw_owner) || MLX5_CAP_FLOWTABLE_NIC_RX(dev->mdev, sw_owner_v2) || MLX5_CAP_FLOWTABLE_NIC_TX(dev->mdev, sw_owner_v2))) return -EOPNOTSUPP; DevX users are expected to check capabilities and be ready to work with missing ones. Thanks > > Jason
