On Thu, Mar 12, 2026 at 09:08:58AM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Thu, Mar 12, 2026 at 08:20:20AM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 12, 2026 at 01:03:59PM +0200, Gal Pressman wrote: > > > On 12/03/2026 2:24, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > > > Add the missed check for unsupported comp_mask bits. > > > > > > Is it really missed? IIRC, it's intended. > > > > > > See the comment above your hunk, and efa_user_comp_handshake()? > > > > No, that is an illegal way to use a field called comp_mask. > > > > If the driver wants that it needs a new field "suggested feature flags > > to enable" > > > > comp_mask is strictly to say that new fields are present and must be > > processed by the kernel, and nothing else. > > We could also rename the struct field away from comp_mask ? It is > easier to add a comp_mask later.. > > Jason
Agree that this field should be renamed as we shouldn't fail when unsupported value is requested. I'll send a patch. Michael
