netdev - Re: [RFC v3 02/11] IB/hfi-vnic: Virtual Network Interface Controller (VNIC) interface

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: <20170207220628.GB76652@knc-06.sc.intel.com>
Date:   Tue, 7 Feb 2017 14:06:30 -0800
From:   "Vishwanathapura, Niranjana" <niranjana.vishwanathapura@...el.com>
To:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com>
Cc:     dledford@...hat.com, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, dennis.dalessandro@...el.com,
        ira.weiny@...el.com, Liran Liss <liranl@...lanox.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC v3 02/11] IB/hfi-vnic: Virtual Network Interface Controller
 (VNIC) interface

On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 02:19:01PM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 12:23:01PM -0800, Vishwanathapura, Niranjana wrote:
>> Add rdma netdev interface to ib device structure allowing rdma netdev
>> devices to be allocated by ib clients.
>> Define HFI VNIC interface between hardware independent VNIC
>> functionality and the hardware dependent VNIC functionality.
>
>This commit message could be a bit clearer.
>
>The alloc_rdma_netdev multiplexer is inteded as a new general
>interface and this adds a protocol definition for ethernet VNIC on
>OPA.
>

Ok, will add the statement to the commit message in PATCH series.

>The hope is that ipoib can follow the same example and use the same
>alloc_rdma_netdev entry point. Hopefully Mellanox will look at this
>patch as I have talked to them in the past about doing this...
>
>It looks like HFI turned out fairly well, the driver code and higher
>level code have a reasonably nice split in my quick look.
>

Yes, HFI_VNIC design is leaner now with standard netdev interface.

>>  	IB_DEVICE_RAW_SCATTER_FCS		= (1ULL << 34),
>> +	IB_DEVICE_RDMA_NETDEV_HFI_VNIC		= (1ULL << 35),
>
>What is this called HFI_VNIC anyhow? Shouldn't this be OPA_VNIC? There
>is nothing really HFI specific, right?
>

Agreed, OPA_VNIC is more appropriate here. Will change it.

>> +/* hfi vnic rdma netdev's private data structure */
>> +struct hfi_vnic_rdma_netdev {
>> +	struct rdma_netdev rn;  /* keep this first */
>> +	/* followed by device private data */
>> +	char *dev_priv[0];
>> +};
>> +
>> +static inline void *hfi_vnic_priv(const struct net_device *dev)
>> +{
>> +	struct rdma_netdev *rn = netdev_priv(dev);
>> +
>> +	return rn->clnt_priv;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static inline void *hfi_vnic_dev_priv(const struct net_device *dev)
>> +{
>> +	struct rdma_netdev *rn = netdev_priv(dev);
>
>Shouldn't this be hfi_vnic_rdma_netdev ?
>
>> +	return rn + 1;
>
>And this should be rn->dev_priv ?
>

Yah, both will result in same behavior. But yah, what you are suggesting will 
remove any confusion. Will change in next PATCH series.

Niranjana

>Jason