Re: [PATCH] IB/verbs: Check each operation of dma_ops individually

2015-04-14 Thread Yuval Shaia
ping On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 08:50:27PM -0800, Yuval Shaia wrote: Current approach force one to implement all ops even when some functions can use the default implementation. As a result, for new DMA ops (e.x new arch) many functions just wrap the default function. The fix is to check each

Re: [PATCH] IB/verbs: Check each operation of dma_ops individually

2015-04-14 Thread Sagi Grimberg
On 2/23/2015 6:50 AM, Yuval Shaia wrote: Current approach force one to implement all ops even when some functions can use the default implementation. As a result, for new DMA ops (e.x new arch) many functions just wrap the default function. The fix is to check each DMA operation individually

Re: [PATCH] IB/verbs: Check each operation of dma_ops individually

2015-04-14 Thread Jason Gunthorpe
On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 11:52:11AM +0300, Sagi Grimberg wrote: On 2/23/2015 6:50 AM, Yuval Shaia wrote: Current approach force one to implement all ops even when some functions can use the default implementation. As a result, for new DMA ops (e.x new arch) many functions just wrap the

[PATCH] IB/verbs: Check each operation of dma_ops individually

2015-02-23 Thread Yuval Shaia
Current approach force one to implement all ops even when some functions can use the default implementation. As a result, for new DMA ops (e.x new arch) many functions just wrap the default function. The fix is to check each DMA operation individually so one can leave empty the ones not need to