Re: [PATCH rdma-next 07/10] RDMA/efa: Allow passing of optional access flags for MR registration

Gal Pressman
2020-01-22T07:51:47Z

On 21/01/2020 18:57, Yishai Hadas wrote:
> On 1/21/2020 6:37 PM, Gal Pressman wrote:
>> On 08/01/2020 20:05, Yishai Hadas wrote:
>>> From: Michael Guralnik <michaelgur@mellanox.com>
>>>
>>> As part of adding a range of optional access flags that drivers need to
>>> be able to accept, mask this range inside efa driver.
>>> This will prevent the driver from failing when an access flag from
>>> that range is passed.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Michael Guralnik <michaelgur@mellanox.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Yishai Hadas <yishaih@mellanox.com>
>>> ---
>>>   drivers/infiniband/hw/efa/efa_verbs.c | 1 +
>>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/hw/efa/efa_verbs.c
>>> b/drivers/infiniband/hw/efa/efa_verbs.c
>>> index 50c2257..b6b936c 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/infiniband/hw/efa/efa_verbs.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/infiniband/hw/efa/efa_verbs.c
>>> @@ -1370,6 +1370,7 @@ struct ib_mr *efa_reg_mr(struct ib_pd *ibpd, u64 start,
>>> u64 length,
>>>           IB_ACCESS_LOCAL_WRITE |
>>>           (is_rdma_read_cap(dev) ? IB_ACCESS_REMOTE_READ : 0);
>>>   +    access_flags &= ~IB_UVERBS_ACCESS_OPTIONAL_RANGE;
>>
>> Hi Yishai,
>> access_flags should be masked with IB_ACCESS_OPTIONAL instead of
>> IB_UVERBS_ACCESS_OPTIONAL_RANGE.
>>
>
> You are talking from namespace point of view, right ? both have same value.
>
> If it's important, can you send some patch to replace ?

I'll send a patch, thanks.