Re: [PATCH v4 10/27] IB/Verbs: Reform cm related part in IB-core cma/ucm

From: Michael Wang
Date: Fri Apr 17 2015 - 04:11:58 EST




On 04/16/2015 07:21 PM, Tom Talpey wrote:
> 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.

Yeah, it can or can't, maybe 'unknown' is better :-)

Regards,
Michael Wang

>
> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>
--
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/