i have 2 question about this email (and a request):
Roland Dreier wrote:
> +enum ibv_rereg_mr_flags {
> + IBV_REREG_MR_CHANGE_TRANSLATION = (1 << 0),
> + IBV_REREG_MR_CHANGE_PD = (1 << 1),
> + IBV_REREG_MR_CHANGE_ACCESS = (1 << 2),
> + IBV_REREG_MR_KEEP_VALID = (1 << 3)
> +};
>
1) Why do you need the last enumeration (IBV_REREG_MR_KEEP_VALID)?
> +struct ibv_mw_bind {
> + struct ibv_mr *mr;
> + uint64_t wr_id;
> + uint64_t addr;
> + uint64_t length;
> + enum ibv_send_flags send_flags;
> + enum ibv_access_flags mw_access_flags;
> +};
>
2) I suggest the following structure for the ibv_mw_bind:
struct ibv_mw_bind {
uint64_t wr_id;
uint64_t addr;
uint64_t length;
struct ibv_mr *mr;
enum ibv_send_flags send_flags;
enum ibv_access_flags mw_access_flags;
};
to be optimal on 32 bit arch as well.
3) in the past we had a mail thread about destroying completion event
channel: to return BUSY if one is trying to
destroy a channel that being used by CQs. in order to do it i will need
to do this check in kernel level:
can you add a function to this issue in the uverbs (or do you want me to
send you a patch to this issue).
if we are changing the ABI, i would like to add this issue as well.
thanks
Dotan
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general
To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
