[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7bdca720-d39d-6104-c5db-fe3f375aea2f@amd.com>
Date: Wed, 28 May 2025 20:42:13 +0530
From: Abhijit Gangurde <abhijit.gangurde@....com>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
Cc: shannon.nelson@....com, brett.creeley@....com, davem@...emloft.net,
edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com, corbet@....net,
leon@...nel.org, andrew+netdev@...n.ch, allen.hubbe@....com,
nikhil.agarwal@....com, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/14] Introduce AMD Pensando RDMA driver
On 5/26/25 21:11, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Mon, May 26, 2025 at 10:19:38AM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>>>> @@ -1454,11 +1466,15 @@ static int ionic_destroy_cq(struct ib_cq *ibcq, struct ib_udata *udata)
>>>> static bool pd_local_privileged(struct ib_pd *pd)
>>>> {
>>>> + /* That isn't how it works, only the lkey get_dma_mr() returns is
>>>> + special and must be used on any WRs that require it. WRs refering to any
>>>> + other lkeys must behave normally. */
>>>> return !pd->uobject;
>>>> }
> I was thinking about this some more, probably the call to get_dma_mr()
> should set a flag in the pd struct (you need a pds_pd struct) which
> indicates that the IONIC_DMA_LKEY is enabled on that PD. Then all
> QPs/etc created against the PD should allow using it.
>
> Checking a uobject here is just a little weird.
>
> Jason
Sure. Will use a flag inside pd to indicate use of local key.
Thanks,
Abhijit
Powered by blists - more mailing lists