From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sagi Grimberg Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/3] IB/core: Expose a device attribute for rdma_read access flags Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 11:07:14 +0200 Message-ID: <56430542.5090008@dev.mellanox.co.il> References: <1447152255-28231-1-git-send-email-sagig@mellanox.com> <1447152255-28231-2-git-send-email-sagig@mellanox.com> <1447156270.7089.3.camel@opteya.com> <5641E4C9.7000206@talpey.com> <5641E644.7080101@mellanox.com> <20151110130648.GA10682@infradead.org> <20151110134147.GA12814@infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20151110134147.GA12814-wEGCiKHe2LqWVfeAwA7xHQ@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-rdma-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Christoph Hellwig , Sagi Grimberg Cc: Tom Talpey , Yann Droneaud , linux-rdma-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org On 10/11/2015 15:41, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > FYI, this is the API I'd aim for (only SRP and no HW driver converted > yet): This looks fine, although personally I find scope and direction flags more confusing than access_flags (but maybe it's just me). I think that the real issue here is the server/target side which needs extra logic for rdma_read and memory registration. If we can put this logic in the core and give ULPs an API that looks something like: - ib_rdma_read() - ib_rdma_write() then maybe we don't need to change our flags? The only reason why I posted this series was a pre-step for this type of API so we can avoid the is_iwarp() condition in the hot path. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html