This patch exists to provide parity for what is in qib. Should we not
have it? If not, why do we have:
commit 38071a461f0a ("IB/qib: Support the new memory registration API")
That was done by me because I saw this in qib and assumed that it was
supported. Now that I found out that it isn't, I'd say it should be
removed altogether shouldn't it?
That doesn't mean it can't be added to rdmavt as a future enhancement
though if there is a need.
Well, given that we're trying to consolidate on post send registration
interface it's kind of a must I'd say.
Are you asking because soft-roce will need it?
I was asking in general, but in specific soft-roce as a consumer will
need to support that yes.
I think it makes sense to revisit when soft-roce comes in,
I agree.
since qib/hfi do not need IB_WR_LOCAL_INV.
Can you explain? Does qib/hfi have a magic way to invalidate memory
regions?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
