[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9DD61F30A802C4429A01CA4200E302A7A68512AA@fmsmsx124.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2019 16:15:20 +0000
From: "Saleem, Shiraz" <shiraz.saleem@...el.com>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...lanox.com>
CC: Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>,
"Kirsher, Jeffrey T" <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>,
"dledford@...hat.com" <dledford@...hat.com>,
"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"Ismail, Mustafa" <mustafa.ismail@...el.com>,
"linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org" <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"nhorman@...hat.com" <nhorman@...hat.com>,
"sassmann@...hat.com" <sassmann@...hat.com>,
"poswald@...e.com" <poswald@...e.com>,
"Ertman, David M" <david.m.ertman@...el.com>
Subject: RE: [rdma 14/16] RDMA/irdma: Add ABI definitions
> Subject: Re: [rdma 14/16] RDMA/irdma: Add ABI definitions
>
> On Fri, Jul 05, 2019 at 04:42:19PM +0000, Saleem, Shiraz wrote:
> > > Subject: Re: [rdma 14/16] RDMA/irdma: Add ABI definitions
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jul 04, 2019 at 10:40:21AM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jul 03, 2019 at 07:12:57PM -0700, Jeff Kirsher wrote:
> > > > > From: Mustafa Ismail <mustafa.ismail@...el.com>
> > > > >
> > > > > Add ABI definitions for irdma.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Mustafa Ismail <mustafa.ismail@...el.com>
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Shiraz Saleem <shiraz.saleem@...el.com>
> > > > > include/uapi/rdma/irdma-abi.h | 130
> > > > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > > 1 file changed, 130 insertions(+) create mode 100644
> > > > > include/uapi/rdma/irdma-abi.h
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/include/uapi/rdma/irdma-abi.h
> > > > > b/include/uapi/rdma/irdma-abi.h new file mode 100644 index
> > > > > 000000000000..bdfbda4c829e
> > > > > +++ b/include/uapi/rdma/irdma-abi.h
> > > > > @@ -0,0 +1,130 @@
> > > > > +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause */
> > > > > +/* Copyright (c) 2006 - 2019 Intel Corporation. All rights reserved.
> > > > > + * Copyright (c) 2005 Topspin Communications. All rights reserved.
> > > > > + * Copyright (c) 2005 Cisco Systems. All rights reserved.
> > > > > + * Copyright (c) 2005 Open Grid Computing, Inc. All rights reserved.
> > > > > + */
> > > > > +
> > > > > +#ifndef IRDMA_ABI_H
> > > > > +#define IRDMA_ABI_H
> > > > > +
> > > > > +#include <linux/types.h>
> > > > > +
> > > > > +/* irdma must support legacy GEN_1 i40iw kernel
> > > > > + * and user-space whose last ABI ver is 5 */ #define
> > > > > +IRDMA_ABI_VER
> > > > > +6
> > > >
> > > > Can you please elaborate about it more?
> > > > There is no irdma code in RDMA yet, so it makes me wonder why new
> > > > define shouldn't start from 1.
> > >
> > > It is because they are ABI compatible with the current user space,
> > > which raises the question why we even have this confusing header file..
> >
> > It is because we need to support current providers/i40iw user-space.
> > Our user-space patch series will introduce a new provider (irdma)
> > whose ABI ver. is also 6 (capable of supporting X722 and which will
> > work with i40iw driver on older kernels) and removes providers/i40iw from rdma-
> core.
>
> Why on earth would we do that?
>
A unified library providers/irdma to go in hand with the driver irdma and uses the ABI header.
It can support the new network device e810 and existing x722 iWARP device. It obsoletes
providers/i40iw and extends its ABI. So why keep providers/i40iw around in rdma-core?
Shiraz
Powered by blists - more mailing lists