Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Tue, 14 Apr 2015 17:58:49 +0200 | From | Michael Wang <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3 10/28] IB/Verbs: Reform cm related part in IB-core cma |
| |
On 04/14/2015 05:50 PM, ira.weiny wrote: > On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 10:35:34AM +0200, Michael Wang wrote: >> >> >> On 04/13/2015 09:25 PM, Hefty, Sean wrote: >>>> @@ -1037,17 +1033,13 @@ void rdma_destroy_id(struct rdma_cm_id *id) >>>> mutex_unlock(&id_priv->handler_mutex); >>>> >>>> if (id_priv->cma_dev) { >>>> - switch (rdma_node_get_transport(id_priv->id.device- >>>>> node_type)) { >>>> - case RDMA_TRANSPORT_IB: >>>> + if (rdma_ib_or_iboe(id_priv->id.device, id_priv->id.port_num)) >>> >>> A listen id can be associated with a device without being associated with a port (see the listen_any_list). >> Some other check is needed to handle this case. I guess the code could check the first port on the device >> (replace port_num with hardcoded value 1). Then we wouldn't be any more broken than the code already is. >> (The 'break' is conceptual, not practical.) >> >> Agree, seems like this is very similar to the case of cma_listen_on_dev() which >> do not associated with any particular port in #24. >> >> If the port 1 is enough to present the whole device's cm capability, maybe we can >> get rid of cap_ib_cm_dev() too? >> >> And maybe cap_ib_cm(device, device->node_type == RDMA_NODE_IB_SWITCH ? 0:1) would >> be safer? > > I don't see support for switch port 0 in cm_add_one() now. Are switches supposed > to be supported?
Just concern about the validation of port... is it possible that the device we check in here don't have port 1? (forgive me if the question is too silly :-P)
Regards, Michael Wang
> > Ira > >> >> Regards, >> Michael Wang >>
|  |