Re: [PATCH v2 01/17] IB/Verbs: Implement new callback query_transport() for each HW

From: Doug Ledford
Date: Fri Apr 10 2015 - 13:49:46 EST

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

> >
> > 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@xxxxxxxxxx>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part