Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-131188-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
Message-ID: <1db6ccab-b49f-45d2-a93c-05b0f79371a3@linux.alibaba.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2024 17:32:03 +0800
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next v5 04/11] net/smc: implement some unsupported
 operations of loopback-ism
To: Gerd Bayer <gbayer@linux.ibm.com>, wintera@linux.ibm.com,
 twinkler@linux.ibm.com, hca@linux.ibm.com, gor@linux.ibm.com,
 agordeev@linux.ibm.com, davem@davemloft.net, edumazet@google.com,
 kuba@kernel.org, pabeni@redhat.com, wenjia@linux.ibm.com, jaka@linux.ibm.com
Cc: borntraeger@linux.ibm.com, svens@linux.ibm.com,
 alibuda@linux.alibaba.com, tonylu@linux.alibaba.com,
 linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org,
 netdev@vger.kernel.org
References: <20240324135522.108564-1-guwen@linux.alibaba.com>
 <20240324135522.108564-5-guwen@linux.alibaba.com>
 <3122eece5b484abcf8d23f85d6c18c36f0b939ff.camel@linux.ibm.com>
From: Wen Gu <guwen@linux.alibaba.com>
In-Reply-To: <3122eece5b484abcf8d23f85d6c18c36f0b939ff.camel@linux.ibm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit


On 2024/4/4 00:25, Gerd Bayer wrote:
> On Sun, 2024-03-24 at 21:55 +0800, Wen Gu wrote:
>> This implements some operations that loopback-ism does not support
>> currently:
>>   - vlan operations, since there is no strong use-case for it.
>>   - signal_event operations, since there is no event to be processed
>> by the loopback-ism device.
> 
> Hi Wen,
> 
> I wonder if the these operations that are not supported by loopback-ism
> should rather be marked "optional" in the struct smcd_ops, and the
> calling code should call these only when they are implemented.
> 
> Of course this would mean more changes to net/smc/smc_core.c - but
> loopback-ism could omit these "boiler-plate" functions.
> 

Hi Gerd.

Thank you for the thoughts! I agree that checks like 'if(smcd->ops->xxx)'
can avoid the device driver from implementing unsupported operations. But I
am afraid that which operations need to be defined as 'optional' may differ
from different device perspectives (e.g. for loopback-ism they are vlan-related
opts and signal_event). So I perfer to simply let the smc protocol assume
that all operations have been implemented, and let drivers to decide which
ones are unsupported in implementation. What do you think?

Thanks!

>>   
>> +static int smc_lo_add_vlan_id(struct smcd_dev *smcd, u64 vlan_id)
>> +{
>> +	return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int smc_lo_del_vlan_id(struct smcd_dev *smcd, u64 vlan_id)
>> +{
>> +	return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int smc_lo_set_vlan_required(struct smcd_dev *smcd)
>> +{
>> +	return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int smc_lo_reset_vlan_required(struct smcd_dev *smcd)
>> +{
>> +	return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int smc_lo_signal_event(struct smcd_dev *dev, struct smcd_gid
>> *rgid,
>> +			       u32 trigger_irq, u32 event_code, u64
>> info)
>> +{
>> +	return 0;
>> +}
>> +
> 
> Just a pattern that I saw elsewhere in the kernel...
> 
> Thanks,
> Gerd