Re: [PATCH v3 3/5] RDMA/core: add MR support for bvec-based RDMA operations

[Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>]

On Fri, Jan 23, 2026 at 11:47:46AM -0500, Chuck Lever wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 23, 2026, at 1:36 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> >>  	for (i = 0; i < ctx->nr_ops; i++) {
> >> -		struct rdma_rw_reg_ctx *reg = &ctx->reg[i];
> >> +		struct rdma_rw_reg_ctx *reg = &ctx->reg.ctx[i];
> >
> > Jumping ahead here - why can't the sgtable be stored in ->reg
> > without renaming?  Is there case where need it, but the rest of
> > reg?   In 
> 
> I think the answer is yes, with bvec, both fields are needed at
> the same time. My preference is to go back to the early form of
> the structure without a union, since there are API consumers who
> access the reg field directly. Let me know your thoughts.

What I don't understand is why it can't be added to
struct rdma_rw_reg_ctx.  Are there any uses of the new fields that
don't have that allocated?  If yes, just adding the new fields outside
the union seems to cause the least churn for now, although I'd still
want to clean it up later eventually.