Re: [PATCH rdma-next 4/6] RDMA/core: Move HFI1 IOCTL declarations to common file

Leon Romanovsky
2016-08-18T06:23:48Z

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1779 bytes --]

On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 02:10:51PM -0400, ira.weiny wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 09:55:29AM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 02:16:31AM -0400, ira.weiny wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 04:45:21PM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > > From: Leon Romanovsky <leonro-VPRAkNaXOzVWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org>
> > > >
> > > > Move HFI1 IOCTL declarations to rdma_user_ioctl.h file.
> > >
> > > I have not tried with the patch but I'm 99% sure this will break the PSM2
> > > library build which includes hfi1_user.h.
> > >
> > > This is one of those things I have pondered in the past. Most of the rdma
> > > libraries don't actually use these definitions directly. PSM2 does.
> >
> > I'm not so convinced about it.
> > "#include <rdma/rdma_user_ioctl.h>" was added to hfi1_user.h to share
> > all definitions. PSM2 library will see it.
>
> Ok I see it now. Sorry it was late.
>
> >
> > >
> > > I'm not sure what other libraries do.
> > >
> > > In the final patch of this series you admit that the name changes in that patch
> > > will break userspace which uses the defines directly. Can we, should we, do
> > > that?
> >
> > I'm talking about __NUM() macros.
> >
> > Do you really use __NUM(ASSIGN_CTXT) in user application? Why did you do
> > it? You supposed to use HFI1_IOCTL_ASSIGN_CTXT instead.
>
> Your commit message says "... and MAD indexes were renamed. It has the
> potential to break application which use these defines directly."
>
> I took that at face value. I've taken a closer look ... I see now that neither
> the numbers nor the define names changed so ok, my mistake.

Sorry for inconvenience,
I'll update commit message, so it will better reflect reality.

Thanks

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]