Re: [PATCH V3 1/5] RDMA/core: Transport-independent access flags

Sagi Grimberg
2015-07-14T09:10:36Z

On 7/13/2015 11:15 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 03:36:44PM -0400, Tom Talpey wrote:
>> On 7/11/2015 6:25 AM, 'Christoph Hellwig' wrote:
>>> I think what we need to support for now is FRMR as the primary target,
>>> and FMR as a secondar[y].
>>
>> FMR is a *very* bad choice, for several reasons.
>
> If an API can transparently support FMR, then I think it can also
> transparently support ib_get_phys_mr as an alternative, they look
> pretty similar... ?

Having an API that does FRMR/FMR/PHYS_MR is even worse from the ULP
PoV. If you expose an API that might schedule (PHYS_MR) it limits the
context that the caller is allowed to call in.

I'm 100% against an registration API that *might* schedule.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in