Re: [PATCH rdma-next v1 11/11] RDMA/mlx5: Add support to get MR resource in RAW format

[Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>]

On Sun, May 31, 2020 at 12:54:14PM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 08:31:21PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 04:54:08PM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > From: Maor Gottlieb <maorg@mellanox.com>
> > >
> > > Add support to get MR (mkey) resource dump in RAW format.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Maor Gottlieb <maorg@mellanox.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@mellanox.com>
> > >  drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/restrack.c | 3 ++-
> > >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/restrack.c b/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/restrack.c
> > > index 9e1389b8dd9f..834886536127 100644
> > > +++ b/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/restrack.c
> > > @@ -116,7 +116,8 @@ int mlx5_ib_fill_res_mr_entry(struct sk_buff *msg,
> > >  	struct nlattr *table_attr;
> > >
> > >  	if (raw)
> > > -		return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > > +		return fill_res_raw(msg, mr->dev, MLX5_SGMT_TYPE_PRM_QUERY_MKEY,
> > > +				    mlx5_mkey_to_idx(mr->mmkey.key));
> >
> > None of the raw functions actually share any code with the non raw
> > part, why are the in the same function? In fact all the implemenations
> > just call some other function for raw.
> >
> > To me this looks like they should should all be a new op
> > 'fill_raw_res_mr_entry' and drop the 'bool'
> 
> I don't think that this is right approach, we already created ops per-objects
> o remove API multiplexing. Extra de-duplication will create too much ops
> without any real benefit.

If there is no code sharing then they should not be in the same
function at all. More ops is not really a problem.

Jason