On 2/19/2015 5:03 PM, Haggai Eran wrote:
On 20/02/2015 00:02, Somnath Kotur wrote:@@ -502,9 +547,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(ib_create_qp); static const struct { int valid; enum ib_qp_attr_mask req_param[IB_QPT_MAX]; - enum ib_qp_attr_mask req_param_add_eth[IB_QPT_MAX]; enum ib_qp_attr_mask opt_param[IB_QPT_MAX]; - enum ib_qp_attr_mask opt_param_add_eth[IB_QPT_MAX]; } qp_state_table[IB_QPS_ERR + 1][IB_QPS_ERR + 1] = { [IB_QPS_RESET] = { [IB_QPS_RESET] = { .valid = 1 }, @@ -585,12 +628,6 @@ static const struct { IB_QP_MAX_DEST_RD_ATOMIC | IB_QP_MIN_RNR_TIMER), }, - .req_param_add_eth = { - [IB_QPT_RC] = (IB_QP_SMAC), - [IB_QPT_UC] = (IB_QP_SMAC), - [IB_QPT_XRC_INI] = (IB_QP_SMAC), - [IB_QPT_XRC_TGT] = (IB_QP_SMAC) - }, .opt_param = { [IB_QPT_UD] = (IB_QP_PKEY_INDEX | IB_QP_QKEY), @@ -611,21 +648,7 @@ static const struct { [IB_QPT_GSI] = (IB_QP_PKEY_INDEX | IB_QP_QKEY), }, - .opt_param_add_eth = { - [IB_QPT_RC] = (IB_QP_ALT_SMAC | - IB_QP_VID | - IB_QP_ALT_VID), - [IB_QPT_UC] = (IB_QP_ALT_SMAC | - IB_QP_VID | - IB_QP_ALT_VID), - [IB_QPT_XRC_INI] = (IB_QP_ALT_SMAC | - IB_QP_VID | - IB_QP_ALT_VID), - [IB_QPT_XRC_TGT] = (IB_QP_ALT_SMAC | - IB_QP_VID | - IB_QP_ALT_VID) - } - } + }, }, [IB_QPS_RTR] = { [IB_QPS_RESET] = { .valid = 1 }, @@ -847,13 +870,6 @@ int ib_modify_qp_is_ok(enum ib_qp_state cur_state, enum ib_qp_state next_state, req_param = qp_state_table[cur_state][next_state].req_param[type]; opt_param = qp_state_table[cur_state][next_state].opt_param[type]; - if (ll == IB_LINK_LAYER_ETHERNET) { - req_param |= qp_state_table[cur_state][next_state]. - req_param_add_eth[type]; - opt_param |= qp_state_table[cur_state][next_state]. - opt_param_add_eth[type]; - } - if ((mask & req_param) != req_param) return 0;I understand this patch will remove any kernel reference to these modify_qp attributes. However, what about user-space? Was it previously allowed to pass in these parameters?
There was no libibverbs that declared those flags. It was filled by ib_resolve_eth_l2_attrs. If someone wrote a custom libibverbs that passed those flags, they would have just been ignored. We could replace them as reserved flags. What do you think?
-- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
