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

[Doug Ledford]

On Wed, 2015-04-08 at 14:10 -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 08, 2015 at 02:29:46PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
> 
> > To straighten all this out, lets break management out into the two
> > distinct types:
> > 
> > rdma_port_ib_fabric_mgmt() <- fabric specific management tasks: MAD, SM,
> > multicast.  The proper test for this with my bitmap above is a simple
> > transport & RDMA_MGMT_IB test.  If will be true for IB and OPA fabrics.
> 
> > rdma_port_conn_mgmt() <- connection management, which we currently
> > support everything except USNIC (correct Sean?), so a test would be
> > something like !(transport & RDMA_TRANSPORT_USNIC).  This is then split
> > out into two subgroups, IB style and iWARP stype connection management
> > (aka, rdma_port_iw_conn_mgmt() and rdma_port_ib_conn_mgmt()).  In my
> > above bitmap, since I didn't give IBOE its own transport type, these
> > subgroups still boil down to the simple tests transport & iWARP and
> > transport & IB like they do today.
> 
> There is a lot more variation here than just these two tests, and those
> two tests won't scale to include OPA.
> 
>         IB ROCEE OPA
> SMI     Y  N     Y    (though the OPA smi looked a bit different)
> IB SMP  Y  N     N
> OPA SMP N  N     Y
> GMP     Y  Y     Y
> SA      Y  N     Y
> PM      Y  Y     Y    (? guessing for OPA)
> CM      Y  Y     Y
> GMP needs GRH N Y N
> 

You can still break this down to a manageable bitmap.

SMI, SMP, and SA are all essentially the same and can be combined to one
bitmap that is

IB_SM  0x1
OPA_SM 0x2

and the defines are such that IB devices define IB_SM, and OPA devices
define IB_SM and OPA_SM.  Any minor differences between OPA and IB can
be handled by testing just the OPA_SM bit.  This will exclude all IBOE
devices and iWARP devices.

GMP, PM, and CM are all the same, and are all identical to transport ==
INFINIBAND.

GMP needs GRH happens to be precisely the same as ib_dev_is_iboe.

These are exactly the tests I proposed Jason.  I'm not sure I see your
point here.  I guess my point is that although the scenario of all the
different items seems complex, it really does boil down to needing only
exactly what I proposed earlier to fulfill the entire test matrix.


-- 
Doug Ledford <dledford@xxxxxxxxxx>
              GPG KeyID: 0E572FDD

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