Re: [PATCH v3 10/28] IB/Verbs: Reform cm related part in IB-core cma

[Michael Wang]

On 04/14/2015 05:50 PM, ira.weiny wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 10:35:34AM +0200, Michael Wang wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 04/13/2015 09:25 PM, Hefty, Sean wrote:
>>>> @@ -1037,17 +1033,13 @@ void rdma_destroy_id(struct rdma_cm_id *id)
>>>>  	mutex_unlock(&id_priv->handler_mutex);
>>>>
>>>>  	if (id_priv->cma_dev) {
>>>> -		switch (rdma_node_get_transport(id_priv->id.device-
>>>>> node_type)) {
>>>> -		case RDMA_TRANSPORT_IB:
>>>> +		if (rdma_ib_or_iboe(id_priv->id.device, id_priv->id.port_num))
>>>
>>> A listen id can be associated with a device without being associated with a port (see the listen_any_list). 
>> Some other check is needed to handle this case.  I guess the code could check the first port on the device
>> (replace port_num with hardcoded value 1).  Then we wouldn't be any more broken than the code already is.
>> (The 'break' is conceptual, not practical.)
>>
>> Agree, seems like this is very similar to the case of cma_listen_on_dev() which
>> do not associated with any particular port in #24.
>>
>> If the port 1 is enough to present the whole device's cm capability, maybe we can
>> get rid of cap_ib_cm_dev() too?
>>
>> And maybe cap_ib_cm(device, device->node_type == RDMA_NODE_IB_SWITCH ? 0:1) would
>> be safer?
> 
> I don't see support for switch port 0 in cm_add_one() now.  Are switches supposed
> to be supported?

Just concern about the validation of port... is it possible that the device we check
in here don't have port 1? (forgive me if the question is too silly :-P)

Regards,
Michael Wang

> 
> Ira
> 
>>
>> 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/