Re: [PATCH v6 01/26] IB/Verbs: Implement new callback query_transport()

[ira.weiny]

On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 09:39:05AM +0200, Michael Wang wrote:
> 
> 
> On 04/24/2015 05:12 PM, Liran Liss wrote:
> >> From: linux-rdma-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:linux-rdma-
> >>
> > [snip]
> >> a/include/rdma/ib_verbs.h b/include/rdma/ib_verbs.h index
> >> 65994a1..d54f91e 100644
> >> --- a/include/rdma/ib_verbs.h
> >> +++ b/include/rdma/ib_verbs.h
> >> @@ -75,10 +75,13 @@ enum rdma_node_type {  };
> >>
> >>  enum rdma_transport_type {
> >> +	/* legacy for users */
> >>  	RDMA_TRANSPORT_IB,
> >>  	RDMA_TRANSPORT_IWARP,
> >>  	RDMA_TRANSPORT_USNIC,
> >> -	RDMA_TRANSPORT_USNIC_UDP
> >> +	RDMA_TRANSPORT_USNIC_UDP,
> >> +	/* new transport */
> >> +	RDMA_TRANSPORT_IBOE,
> > 
> > Remove RDMA_TRANSPORT_IBOE - it is not a transport.
> > ROCE uses IBTA transport.
> > 
> > If any code should test for ROCE should invoke a specific helper, e.g., rdma_protocol_iboe().
> > This is  what you currently call "rdma_tech_iboe" is patch 02/26.
> > 
> > I think that pretty much everybody agrees that rdma_protocol_*() is a better name than rdma_tech_*(), right?
> > So, let's change this.
> 
> Sure, sounds reasonable now, about the IBOE, we still need it to
> separate the port support IB/ETH without the check on link-layer,
> So what about a new enum on protocol type?
> 
> Like:
> 
> enum rdma_protocol {
> 	RDMA_PROTOCOL_IB,
> 	RDMA_PROTOCOL_IBOE,
> 	RDMA_PROTOCOL_IWARP,
> 	RDMA_PROTOCOL_USNIC_UDP
> };
> 
> So we could use query_protocol() to ask device provide the protocol
> type, and there will be no mixing with the legacy transport type
> anymore :-)

I'm ok with that.  I like introducing a unique namespace which is clearly
different from the previous "transport" one.

Ira

--
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/