From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.156.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 90A821F8905; Fri, 17 Jan 2025 11:04:19 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=148.163.156.1 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1737111861; cv=none; b=qYpgS7TcURWowjJ2Ld85OUHwXaF0eR9Q5CwAGlCwJmFL7lJ4ha/0h7JbQ8CXXhgYqKCsnwuWmMd/KzSY/SCNQcULSqcoeJZwze8r7GF/+O3QOSy5abue075cbuSppAJqROwrNC6TAKZydVParoLDD8xCuECw6jgpwwZGtR5qEHY= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1737111861; c=relaxed/simple; bh=6dHuOH8tZH87hfcM8Zo2QAgoWHdytFSqcuRVEsj8ANo=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=XgBDuMyhmvfBz5OW8QuWfOVfaC6GvttC0wHgKzZUyeGHuGs79vq3Q+WqfpWC1lNL+glmN22IcXSRvXC4hO0IHzFMDfSta/Dq4GvYiWS29KZg65YOSOiVeP9RXJWhrw46O9n8PeRTtb22oaK5pC8/59hLLimOVKzfrYk7HBsK26w= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.ibm.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.ibm.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=ibm.com header.i=@ibm.com header.b=I8isLou3; arc=none smtp.client-ip=148.163.156.1 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.ibm.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.ibm.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=ibm.com header.i=@ibm.com header.b="I8isLou3" Received: from pps.filterd (m0360083.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.18.1.2/8.18.1.2) with ESMTP id 50H3qqqP025512; Fri, 17 Jan 2025 11:04:12 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=cc :content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to; s=pp1; bh=z9VWwi BIRwOvxV6QcNBCpok231Z8erNJNcVDezJ2D9s=; b=I8isLou3gvy/gUm+1E2Rdn 4eczJ4fy6XOuIIdA1NljyFHIyuyx+Ve8g+7NIVFe5YUdn4hGyEl4QXlGqWzxFsT6 wUuUr0QRoscnNT5bzCVkvAz+ZdnTfDP9PbOCg2QZ7EctglX1WgMNLu5MS7Iart8R ENRxpkrk4o8MR/teACfzkhB0pj2tcEK1pfeXgDN19ao2nRCROztMA2oCSDE/HbOz kygobWZPyIdQaL/ddY4qcyYUukKRSHBuNo/hjKPaiEpjRr6m+mrHlRKFrfECT+LU NGAXJj+wtS5SZz9tIBFc7HleCMpWhrvPTsN2PH999fX8j4x0EcK5D3+zC7vLrfhA == Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 447fpc9qua-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 17 Jan 2025 11:04:12 +0000 (GMT) Received: from m0360083.ppops.net (m0360083.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.18.0.8/8.18.0.8) with ESMTP id 50HAx2dj007845; Fri, 17 Jan 2025 11:04:12 GMT Received: from ppma11.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (db.9e.1632.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [50.22.158.219]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 447fpc9qu8-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 17 Jan 2025 11:04:11 +0000 (GMT) Received: from pps.filterd (ppma11.dal12v.mail.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma11.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (8.18.1.2/8.18.1.2) with ESMTP id 50H7ZdbA016571; Fri, 17 Jan 2025 11:04:11 GMT Received: from smtprelay05.fra02v.mail.ibm.com ([9.218.2.225]) by ppma11.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 4445p226sq-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 17 Jan 2025 11:04:10 +0000 Received: from smtpav02.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (smtpav02.fra02v.mail.ibm.com [10.20.54.101]) by smtprelay05.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 50HB47m052888048 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 17 Jan 2025 11:04:07 GMT Received: from smtpav02.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A0632004B; Fri, 17 Jan 2025 11:04:07 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtpav02.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BE9920040; Fri, 17 Jan 2025 11:04:06 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [9.171.79.45] (unknown [9.171.79.45]) by smtpav02.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Fri, 17 Jan 2025 11:04:05 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <235f4580-a062-4789-a598-ea54d13504bb@linux.ibm.com> Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2025 12:04:06 +0100 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-s390@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [RFC net-next 0/7] Provide an ism layer To: dust.li@linux.alibaba.com, Wenjia Zhang , Jan Karcher , Gerd Bayer , Halil Pasic , "D. Wythe" , Tony Lu , Wen Gu , Peter Oberparleiter , David Miller , Jakub Kicinski , Paolo Abeni , Eric Dumazet , Andrew Lunn Cc: Julian Ruess , Niklas Schnelle , Thorsten Winkler , netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, Heiko Carstens , Vasily Gorbik , Alexander Gordeev , Christian Borntraeger , Sven Schnelle , Simon Horman References: <20250115195527.2094320-1-wintera@linux.ibm.com> <20250116093231.GD89233@linux.alibaba.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Alexandra Winter In-Reply-To: <20250116093231.GD89233@linux.alibaba.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: Bc5ul1wygm9gBnHl7Y7C9AI4itJqMy-3 X-Proofpoint-GUID: 4hgNXehnU4vmNjx6aiB2Sb3C9yGOnPjB X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.293,Aquarius:18.0.1057,Hydra:6.0.680,FMLib:17.12.68.34 definitions=2025-01-17_04,2025-01-16_01,2024-11-22_01 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 suspectscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=654 spamscore=0 malwarescore=0 clxscore=1015 priorityscore=1501 mlxscore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.19.0-2411120000 definitions=main-2501170084 I hit the send button to early, sorry about that. Let me comment on the other proposals from Dust Li as well. On 16.01.25 10:32, Dust Li wrote: > Abstraction of ISM Device Details: I propose we abstract the ISM device > details by providing SMC with helper functions. These functions could > encapsulate ism->ops, making the implementation cleaner and more > intuitive. Maybe I misunderstand what you mean by helper functions.. Why would you encapsulate ism->ops functions in another set of wrappers? I was happy to remove the helper functions in 2/7 and 7/7. This way, the struct ism_device would mainly serve its > implementers, while the upper helper functions offer a streamlined > interface for SMC. I was actually also wondering, whether the clients should access ism_device at all. Or whether they should only use the ism_ops. I can give that a try in the next version. I think this RFC almost there already. The clients would still need to pass a poitner to ism_dev as a parameter. > Structuring and Naming: I recommend embedding the structure of ism_ops > directly within ism_dev rather than using a pointer. I think it is a common method to have the const struct xy_ops in the device driver code and then use pointer to register the device with an upper layer. What would be the benefit of duplicating that struct in every ism_dev? Additionally, > renaming it to ism_device_ops could enhance clarity and consistency. Yes, that would help to distinguish them from the ism_client functions. I' rename them to ism_dev_ops in the next version.