Subject: Re: [RFC v1 17/19] RDMA/irdma: Add ABI definitions

From: Jason Gunthorpe <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2019 09:50:11 -0700

On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 02:52:03PM +0000, Saleem, Shiraz wrote:
> >Subject: Re: [RFC v1 17/19] RDMA/irdma: Add ABI definitions
> >
> >On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 11:11:04AM -0600, Shiraz Saleem wrote:
> >> From: Mustafa Ismail <[email-masked]>
> >>
> >> Add ABI definitions for irdma.
> 
> [....]
> >>
> >> +
> >> +#include <linux/types.h>
> >> +
> >> +#define IRDMA_ABI_VER	6
> >
> >Starting with high numbers?
> 
> It's a bump on the current i40iw ABI ver. of 5 since we
> want to be compatible and support current rdma-core's libi40iw
> for Gen1 (X722) device.

i40iw is one of the drivers that doesn't do ABI versions right, so
this is all meaningless. You should probably fix it:

static const struct verbs_device_ops i40iw_udev_ops = {
        .name = "i40iw",
        .match_min_abi_version = 0,
        .match_max_abi_version = INT_MAX,

0 and INT_MAX need to be something sensible.

> >This won't even compile like this - don't forget you have to send the rdma-core
> >PR along with the kernel patches. You should already be running the travis
> >checks yourself. rdma-core should detect malformed user space headers..
> 
> Yes. We will be sending the rdma-core patches soon.
> Maybe we are missing something here, but this did compile with libirdma
> in rdma-core-v22, but we havent run travis checks yet.

travis does the tests.

Jason