Re: [PATCH net-next v6 01/11] net/smc: decouple ism_client from SMC-D DMB registration

[Wenjia Zhang <wenjia@linux.ibm.com>]

On 15.04.24 10:41, Alexandra Winter wrote:
> 
> 
> On 14.04.24 06:02, Wen Gu wrote:
>> The struct 'ism_client' is specialized for s390 platform firmware ISM.
>> So replace it with 'void' to make SMCD DMB registration helper generic
>> for both Emulated-ISM and existing ISM.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Wen Gu <guwen@linux.alibaba.com>
>> ---
> 
> Just a thought:
> The client concept is really specific to s390 platform firmware ISM.
> So wouldn't it be nice to do something like:
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/s390/net/ism_drv.c b/drivers/s390/net/ism_drv.c
> index 78cca4839a31..37dcdf2bc044 100644
> --- a/drivers/s390/net/ism_drv.c
> +++ b/drivers/s390/net/ism_drv.c
> @@ -747,10 +747,9 @@ static int smcd_query_rgid(struct smcd_dev *smcd, struct smcd_gid *rgid,
>          return ism_query_rgid(smcd->priv, rgid->gid, vid_valid, vid);
>   }
> 
> -static int smcd_register_dmb(struct smcd_dev *smcd, struct smcd_dmb *dmb,
> -                            struct ism_client *client)
> +static int smcd_register_dmb(struct smcd_dev *smcd, struct smcd_dmb *dmb)
>   {
> -       return ism_register_dmb(smcd->priv, (struct ism_dmb *)dmb, client);
> +       return ism_register_dmb(smcd->priv, (struct ism_dmb *)dmb, &smc_ism_client);
>   }
> 
>   static int smcd_unregister_dmb(struct smcd_dev *smcd, struct smcd_dmb *dmb)
> 
> --------------
> 
> This is not a real patch, just a sketch, but I hope you
> get the idea.
> 
> 
> This may be a step in the direction of moving the ism_client concept from
> net/smc/smc_ism.c to drivers/s390/net/ism*
> 
> 
> I know that there are several dependencies to consider.
> And I haven't looked at the other patches in this series yet in detail, to see how you solve
> things like smcd_register_dev. Seems like smcd_register_dmb() is the only one of the smcd_ops
> that you need for loopback and uses ism_client.
> 
> 
> 
> Wenjia, Gerd, and others what do you think?


IMO, the idea is not bad, but it should not belong to this patch series.