Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-81588-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2024 10:06:47 -0400
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>
To: Junxian Huang <huangjunxian6@hisilicon.com>
Cc: leon@kernel.org, linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org, linuxarm@huawei.com,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 for-next 2/2] RDMA/hns: Support userspace configuring
 congestion control algorithm with QP granularity
Message-ID: <20240226140647.GB3220539@ziepe.ca>
References: <20240208035038.94668-1-huangjunxian6@hisilicon.com>
 <20240208035038.94668-3-huangjunxian6@hisilicon.com>
 <20240221155248.GD13491@ziepe.ca>
 <26ea175c-fa31-720c-2ac3-41abcb4d398a@hisilicon.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <26ea175c-fa31-720c-2ac3-41abcb4d398a@hisilicon.com>

On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 03:06:20PM +0800, Junxian Huang wrote:
> >> +enum hns_roce_congest_type_flags {
> >> +	HNS_ROCE_CREATE_QP_FLAGS_DCQCN = 1 << 0,
> >> +	HNS_ROCE_CREATE_QP_FLAGS_LDCP = 1 << 1,
> >> +	HNS_ROCE_CREATE_QP_FLAGS_HC3 = 1 << 2,
> >> +	HNS_ROCE_CREATE_QP_FLAGS_DIP = 1 << 3,
> >> +};
> > 
> > Why are these bit flags if they are exclusive?
> > 
> 
> Our FW uses bit flags. Although there is no direct relationship between
> FW and ABI, but from the perspective of readability, bit flags are also
> used consistently here in ABI.

Don't do that in uapi.

> >> +enum hns_roce_create_qp_comp_mask {
> >> +	HNS_ROCE_CREATE_QP_MASK_CONGEST_TYPE = 1 << 1,
> > 
> > Why 1<<1 not 1<<0?
> 
> This is to keep consistent with our internal ABI, there are some
> features not upstream yet.

Nope, pack them tightly. Don't keep an "internal ABI"

> >> @@ -114,6 +128,9 @@ struct hns_roce_ib_alloc_ucontext_resp {
> >>  	__u32	reserved;
> >>  	__u32	config;
> >>  	__u32	max_inline_data;
> >> +	__u8	reserved0;
> >> +	__u8	congest_type;
> > 
> > Why this layout?
> 
> Same as the 1<<1 issue, to keep consistent with our internal ABI.

Same answer

Jason