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 13:49:32 -0400 |
| |
On Fri, 2015-04-10 at 13:38 -0400, ira.weiny wrote:
> Isn't ocrdma an iWarp device?
No, it's roce. It and mlx4 roce devices currently interoperate.
> > I think if we look closely we'll find that IPoIB today has a hard > > requirement on cap_sa being true, so lets use that? > > I don't think that is appropriate. You have been advocating that the checks > be clear as to what support we need. While currently the IPoIB layer does (for > IB and OPA) require an SA I think those checks are only appropriate when it is > attempting an SA query. > > The choice to run IPoIB at all is a different matter.
Appropriately named or not, Jason's choice of words "has a hard requirement" is correct ;-) For IPoIB, the broadcast group of the fake Ethernet fabric is a very specific IB multicast group per the IPoIB spec.
> > > > In fact any ULP that unconditionally uses the SA can use that. > > They _can_ use that but the point of this exercise (and additional checks going > forward) is that we don't "hide" meaning like this. > > IPoIB should restrict itself to running on IB link layers. Should additional > link layers be added which IPoIB works on then we add that check.
I think your right that checking the link layer is the right thing, and for now, there is no need to check cap_sa because the link layer check enforces it. In the future, if there is a new link layer we want to use this on, and it doesn't have an sa, then we have to enable sa checks and alternate methods at that time.
-- Doug Ledford <dledford@redhat.com> GPG KeyID: 0E572FDD
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |