Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 01/17] IB/Verbs: Implement new callback query_transport() for each HW | From | Doug Ledford <> | Date | Fri, 10 Apr 2015 14:17:20 -0400 |
| |
On Fri, 2015-04-10 at 13:50 -0400, Tom Talpey wrote: > On 4/10/2015 1:10 PM, Doug Ledford wrote: > > As per my above statement, rdma_transport* tests were testing the high > > level transport type, rdma_port* types were testing link layers. iWARP > > has an Eth link layer, so technically port_is_iwarp makes no sense. But > > since all the other types had a check too, I included port_is_iwarp just > > to be complete, and if you are going to ask if a specific port is iwarp > > as a link layer, it makes sense to say yes if the transport is iwarp, > > not if the link layer is eth. > > Not wanting to split hairs, but I would not rule out the possibility > of a future device supporting iWARP on one port and another RDMA > protocol on another. One could also imagine softiWARP and softROCE > co-existing atop a single ethernet NIC. > > So, I disagree that port_is_iwarp() is a nonsequitur.
Agreed, but that wasn't what I was calling non-sense. I was referring to the fact that in my quick little write up, the rdma_port* functions were all intended to test link layers, not high level transports. There is no such thing as an iWARP link layer. It was still a port specific test, and would work in all the situations you described, it's just that asking if a port's link layer is iWARP makes no sense, so I returned true if the transport was iWARP regardless of what the link layer actually was.
-- Doug Ledford <dledford@redhat.com> GPG KeyID: 0E572FDD
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |