netdev - RE: [RFC v2 06/12] qedr: Add support for QP verbs

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <SN1PR07MB2207B94372F7A910C0E6AF0AF8F60@SN1PR07MB2207.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Date:   Wed, 21 Sep 2016 14:23:46 +0000
From:   "Amrani, Ram" <Ram.Amrani@...ium.com>
To:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com>
CC:     "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "dledford@...hat.com" <dledford@...hat.com>,
        "Elior, Ariel" <Ariel.Elior@...ium.com>,
        "Kalderon, Michal" <Michal.Kalderon@...ium.com>,
        "Mintz, Yuval" <Yuval.Mintz@...ium.com>,
        "Borundia, Rajesh" <Rajesh.Borundia@...ium.com>,
        "linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org" <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [RFC v2 06/12] qedr: Add support for QP verbs

> Ugh, each patch keeps adding to this?

The logic in the patch series is to have each patch contain only what is necessary for the specific functionality it adds.
This made it harder on us to prepare but, IMHO, easier for the reviewer.
If you'd like to have this file in one chunk, I can do this. What do you prefer?



> > +struct qedr_create_qp_ureq {
> > +       u32 qp_handle_hi;
> > +       u32 qp_handle_lo;
> > +
> > +       /* SQ */
> > +       /* user space virtual address of SQ buffer */
> > +       u64 sq_addr;
> > +
> > +       /* length of SQ buffer */
> > +       size_t sq_len;
> 
> Do not use size_t, that is just asking for 32/64 bit interop problems.

OK

> > +struct qedr_create_qp_uresp {
> > +       u32 qp_id;
> > +       int atomic_supported;
> 
> int again, etc. You get the idea.

Yeah, I did. Thanks.