Re: [PATCH rdma-next 2/2] RDMA/mana_ib: Implement get_dma_mr

[Konstantin Taranov]

> From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxx>
> On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 09:14:14AM +0000, Konstantin Taranov wrote:
> > > From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxx> On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at
> > > 07:20:59AM -0700, Konstantin Taranov wrote:
> > > > From: Konstantin Taranov <kotaranov@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > > Implement allocation of DMA-mapped memory regions.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Konstantin Taranov <kotaranov@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > >  drivers/infiniband/hw/mana/device.c |  1 +
> > > >  drivers/infiniband/hw/mana/mr.c     | 36
> > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > >  include/net/mana/gdma.h             |  5 ++++
> > > >  3 files changed, 42 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > What is the point of doing this without supporting enough verbs to
> > > allow a kernel ULP?
> > >
> >
> > True, the proposed code is useless at this state.
> > Nevertheless, mana_ib team aims to send kernel ULP patches after we
> > are done with uverbs pathes (i.e., udata is not null). As this change
> > does not conflict with the current effort, I decided to send this
> > patch now. I can extend the series to make it more useful.
> >
> > Jason, could  you suggest a minimal list of ib_device_ops methods,
> > that includes get_dma_mr, which can be approved?
> 
> Is there any chance you can send a single series to support a ULP. NVMe or
> something like?

Sure, I can. I will investigate the way to make get_dma_mr used with fewer changes. 

Generally, I am wondering what would be easier for reviewers.
Should I try to send short patch series enabling one feature, or should I actually try
to produce long patch series that enable a use-case consisting of several features?

Konstantin