Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Thu, 16 Apr 2015 13:21:48 -0400 | From | Tom Talpey <> | Subject | Re: [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 >> > >
|  |