Re: [PATCH v2 13/17] IB/Verbs: Reform cma/ucma with management helpers

[Michael Wang]

On 04/08/2015 07:02 PM, Hefty, Sean wrote:
[snip]
>>
>> The wrapper make sense, but do we have the guarantee that IBoE port won't
>> be used for AF_IB address? I just can't locate the place we filtered it
>> out...
> 
> I can't think of a reason why IBoE wouldn't work with AF_IB, but I'm not sure if anyone has tested it.  The original check would have let IBoE through.  When I suggested checking for IB transport, I meant the actual transport protocol, which would have included both IB and IBoE.

Got it :-)

> 
>>>> @@ -700,8 +700,7 @@ static int cma_ib_init_qp_attr(struct
[snip]
> 
>>>>  	id_priv->id.route.addr.dev_addr.dev_type =
>>>> -		(rdma_port_get_link_layer(cma_dev->device, p) ==
>>>> IB_LINK_LAYER_INFINIBAND) ?
>>>> +		(rdma_transport_ib(cma_dev->device, p)) ?
>>>>  		ARPHRD_INFINIBAND : ARPHRD_ETHER;
>>>
>>> This wants the link layer, or maybe use cap_ipoib.
>>
>> Is this related with ipoib only?
> 
> ARPHDR_INFINIBAND is related to ipoib.  In your next update, maybe go with tech_ib.  I don't know the status of ipoib over iboe.

Will be in next version :-)

Regards,
Michael Wang

> 
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/