lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Apr]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v4 10/27] IB/Verbs: Reform cm related part in IB-core cma/ucm
On 4/16/2015 11:22 AM, Michael Wang wrote:
>
>
> On 04/16/2015 04:31 PM, Hefty, Sean wrote:
>>>> This is equivalent to today where the checks are per node rather than
>>>> per port.
>>>>
>>>> Should all checks here be port 1 based or only certain ones like listen
>>>> ? For example, in connect/reject/disconnect, don't we already have port
>>>> ? Guess this can be dealt with later as this is not a regression from
>>>> the current implementation.
>>>
>>> Yeah, these parts of cma may need more carve in future, like some new
>>> callback
>>> for different CM type as Sean suggested.
>>>
>>> Maybe directly using 1 could help to highlight the problem ;-)
>>
>> Only a few checks need to be per device. I think I pointed those out previously. Testing should show anywhere that we miss fairly quickly, since port would still be 0. For the checks that can be updated to be per port, I would rather go ahead and convert them.
>
> Got it, will be changed in next version :-)
>
> To be confirmed:
> PORT ASSIGNED
> rdma_init_qp_attr Y
> rdma_destroy_id unknown
> cma_listen_on_dev N
> cma_bind_loopback N
> rdma_listen N

Why "N"? rdma_listen() can be constrained to a single port, right?
And even if wildcarded, it needs to act on multiple ports, which is
to say, it will fail only if no ports are eligible.

Tom.


> rdma_connect Y
> rdma_accept Y
> rdma_reject Y
> rdma_disconnect Y
> ib_ucm_add_one N
>
> Is this list correct?
>
> Regards,
> Michael Wang
>
>>
>> - Sean
>>
>
>



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-04-16 19:41    [W:0.225 / U:4.260 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site