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

[Hefty, Sean]

> > Keep in mind that this enum was Liran's response to Michael's original
> > patch.  In the enum in Michael's patch, there was both USNIC and
> > USNIC_UDP.
> 
> Right! That's why I'm confused. Seems wrong to drop it, right?

I think the original USNIC protocol is layered directly over Ethernet.  The protocol basically stole an Ethertype (the one used for IBoE/RoCE) and implemented a proprietary protocol instead.  I have no idea how you resolve that, but I also don't think it's used anymore.  USNIC_UDP is just UDP.

> Well, if RoCEv2 uses the same protocol enum, that may introduce new
> confusion, for example there will be some new CM handling for UDP encap,
> source port selection, and of course vlan/tag assignment, etc. But if
> there is support under way, and everyone is clear, then, ok.

RoCEv2/IBoUDP shares the same port space as UDP.  It has a similar issues as iWarp does sharing state with the main network stack.  I'm not aware of any proposal for resolving that.  Does it require using a separate IP address?  Does it use a port mapper function?  Does netdev care for UDP?  I'm not sure what USNIC does for this either, but a common solution between USNIC and IBoUDP seems reasonable.


N‹§²æ¸›yú²X¬¶ÇvØ–)Þ{.nlj·¥Š{±‘êX§¶›¡Ü}©ž²ÆzÚj:+v‰¨¾«‘êZ+€Êzf£¢·hšˆ§~†­†Ûÿû®w¥¢¸?™¨è&¢)ßf”ùy§m…á«a¶Úÿ0¶ìå