On 7/13/2015 7:30 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 12:09:37PM +0300, Sagi Grimberg wrote:
Given the last discussions on our in-kernel memory registration API I
thought I'd propose another approach to address this.
I assume you can put your new indirect registrations under this API
without changing the callers?
Correct, it's a bonus. The main idea here is to simplify the API for
ULPs.
/*
* Set the SG list in the MR, fail if the sg
* list is not well aligned (caller should handle
* it) or mr does not have enough room to fit the sg.
*/
rc = ib_mr_set_sg(mr, sg, sg_nents);
if (rc)
/* HW does not support - Need to handle it */
I think this call should also do the post.
There seems to be nothing the ULP can customize about the post step
that needs to be exposed.. and bundling the post allows more
flexability to implement different schemes without impacting the ULPs.
This is exactly what I don't want to do. I don't think that implicit
posting is a good idea for reasons that I mentioned earlier:
"This is where I have a problem. Providing an API that may or may not
post a work request on my QP is confusing, and I don't understand its
semantics at all. Do I need to reserve slots on my QP? should I ask for
a completion? If we suppress the completion will I see an error
completion? What should I expect to find in the wr_id?"
We're much better off with keeping the post interface in place but
have it much simpler.
Sagi.
--
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
