On 15.08.25 03:56, Dust Li wrote:
> On 2025-08-14 10:51:27, Alexandra Winter wrote:
>>
>> On 06.08.25 17:41, Alexandra Winter wrote:
>> [...]
>>> Replace smcd->ops->get_dev(smcd) by dibs_get_dev().
>>>
>> Looking at the resulting code, I don't really like this concept of a *_get_dev() function,
>> that does not call get_device().
>> I plan to replace that by using dibs->dev directly in the next version.
> May I ask why? Because of the function name ? If so, maybe we can change the name.
Yes the name. Especially, as it is often used as argument for get_device() or put_device().
Eventually I would like to provide dibs_get_dev()/dibs_put_dev() that actually
do refcounting.
And then I thought defining dibs_read_dev() is not helping readability.
>
> While I don't have a strong preference either way, I personally favor
> hiding the members of the dibs_dev structure from the upper layer. In my
> opinion, it would be better to avoid direct access to dibs members from
> upper layers and instead provide dedicated interface functions.
>
> For example, I even think we should not expose dibs->ops->xxx directly
> to the SMC layer. Encapsulating such details would improve modularity
> and maintainability. Just like what IB subsystem has done before :)
>
> For example:
> # git grep dibs net/smc
> [...]
> net/smc/smc_ism.c: return dibs->ops->query_remote_gid(dibs, &ism_rgid, vlan_id ? 1 : 0,
> net/smc/smc_ism.c: return smcd->dibs->ops->get_fabric_id(smcd->dibs);
> net/smc/smc_ism.c: if (!smcd->dibs->ops->add_vlan_id)
> net/smc/smc_ism.c: if (smcd->dibs->ops->add_vlan_id(smcd->dibs, vlanid)) {
> net/smc/smc_ism.c: if (!smcd->dibs->ops->del_vlan_id)
> net/smc/smc_ism.c: if (smcd->dibs->ops->del_vlan_id(smcd->dibs, vlanid))
> [...]
>
> Best regards,
> Dust
I see your point and I remember you brought that up in your review of
[RFC net-next 0/7] Provide an ism layer
already.
I tried to keep this series to a meaningful minimum, which is a tradeoff.
If possible, I just wanted to move code around and add the dibs layer
in-between. There are several areas where I would like to see even more
de-coupling. eg.:
- handle_irq(): Clients should not run in interrupt context,
a receive_data() callback function would be better.
- The device drivers should not loop through the client array
- dibs_dev_op.*_dmb() functions reveal unnecessary details of the
internal dmb struct to the clients
- ...
So instead of adding a set of 1:1 caller functions / interface functions
for dibs_dev_ops and dibs_client_ops now, I would like to propose to work
on further decoupling devices and clients by adding more abstractions that
bring benefit. And then replace the remaining calls to ops by 1:1 caller
functions. Does that make sense? Or does anybody feel strongly that I need
to provide interface functions now?
BTW, there are some client-only functions and some device-driver-only functions
in dibs.h already. So that is the direction.
