netdev - Re: [PATCH mlx5-next 12/12] net/mlx5: Set ODP SRQ support in firmware

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: <20190203090311.GD3634@mtr-leonro.mtl.com>
Date:   Sun, 3 Feb 2019 11:03:11 +0200
From:   Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
To:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
Cc:     Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>,
        RDMA mailing list <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
        Majd Dibbiny <majd@...lanox.com>,
        Moni Shoua <monis@...lanox.com>,
        Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>,
        linux-netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH mlx5-next 12/12] net/mlx5: Set ODP SRQ support in firmware

On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 04:28:44PM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 08:48:51AM +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > From: Moni Shoua <monis@...lanox.com>
> >
> > To avoid compatibility issue with older kernels the firmware doesn't
> > allow SRQ to work with ODP unless kernel asks for it.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Moni Shoua <monis@...lanox.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Majd Dibbiny <majd@...lanox.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...lanox.com>
> >  .../net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/main.c    | 53 +++++++++++++++++++
> >  include/linux/mlx5/device.h                   |  3 ++
> >  include/linux/mlx5/mlx5_ifc.h                 |  1 +
> >  3 files changed, 57 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/main.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/main.c
> > index be81b319b0dc..b3a76df0cf6c 100644
> > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/main.c
> > @@ -459,6 +459,53 @@ static int handle_hca_cap_atomic(struct mlx5_core_dev *dev)
> >  	return err;
> >  }
> >
> > +static int handle_hca_cap_odp(struct mlx5_core_dev *dev)
> > +{
> > +	void *set_ctx;
> > +	void *set_hca_cap;
> > +	int set_sz = MLX5_ST_SZ_BYTES(set_hca_cap_in);
> > +	int err;
> > +
> > +	if (!MLX5_CAP_GEN(dev, pg))
> > +		return 0;
>
> Should a
>
>     if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_INFINIBAND_ON_DEMAND_PAGING))
>              return 0;
>
> Be here?

We had similar discussion in mlx5_ib main.c, but here we are talking
about mlx5_core code, which from my point of view should represent the
real HW capabilities without relation to kernel compilation mode.

Thanks

>
> Jason

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (802 bytes)