Re: [PATCH rdma-next 0/3] Support out of order data placement

Jason Gunthorpe
2017-06-12T16:55:36Z

On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 04:53:28PM +0000, Parav Pandit wrote:
>
>
> > From: Jason Gunthorpe [mailto:jgunthorpe-ePGOBjL8dl3ta4EC/59zMFaTQe2KTcn/@public.gmane.org]
> > Sent: Monday, June 12, 2017 11:44 AM
> > To: Parav Pandit <parav-VPRAkNaXOzVWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org>
> > Cc: Bart Van Assche <Bart.VanAssche-XdAiOPVOjttBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org>; leon-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org;
> > dledford-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org; linux-rdma-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org; Idan Burstein
> > <idanb-VPRAkNaXOzVWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org>
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH rdma-next 0/3] Support out of order data placement
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 04:42:27PM +0000, Parav Pandit wrote:
> >
> > > > I would suggest at least using the inverted sense like Bart
> > > > describes in the kernel - every kernel ULP is safe.
> >
> > > I don't see a need to use inverted sense in code. I can surely make
> > documentation more descriptive as Bart suggested.
> >
> > If this is 'better' then it should be on as much as possible, and I certianly
> > don't want to see kernel ULPs query caps and other pointless things when
> > they already, necessarily, deal with out of order.
>
> Sure. Kernel ULPs and any other user ULPs can skip query caps.

No, they can't because only mlx5 accepts the new flag.

This is why inverting the flag in the kernel makes much more sense.

Jason