[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5515284A.3030106@profitbricks.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 10:52:10 +0100
From: Michael Wang <yun.wang@...fitbricks.com>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com>
CC: Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, Roland Dreier <roland@...nel.org>,
Sean Hefty <sean.hefty@...el.com>,
Hal Rosenstock <hal.rosenstock@...il.com>,
Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>,
Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@...marydata.com>,
"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Moni Shoua <monis@...lanox.com>,
Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@...lanox.com>,
Tatyana Nikolova <Tatyana.E.Nikolova@...el.com>,
Steve Wise <swise@...ngridcomputing.com>,
Yan Burman <yanb@...lanox.com>,
Jack Morgenstein <jackm@....mellanox.co.il>,
Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>,
Yann Droneaud <ydroneaud@...eya.com>,
Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>,
Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
Matan Barak <matanb@...lanox.com>,
Majd Dibbiny <majd@...lanox.com>,
Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Alex Estrin <alex.estrin@...el.com>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Erez Shitrit <erezsh@...lanox.com>,
Sagi Grimberg <sagig@...lanox.com>,
Haggai Eran <haggaie@...lanox.com>,
Shachar Raindel <raindel@...lanox.com>,
Mike Marciniszyn <mike.marciniszyn@...el.com>,
Tom Tucker <tom@....us>, Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2 RESEND] IB/Verbs: Use helpers to refine the checking
on transport and link layer
Hi, Jason
Thanks for the reply :-)
On 03/26/2015 10:13 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 05:58:20PM +0100, Michael Wang wrote:
>
>> The questions is just wondering how the transition method could be, but
>> if we have to do the changes for vendor, that sounds like a tough job...
> I would see changing how the information is represented in the struct
> as a follow on issue. The first patch should go through and replace
> all direct access to the link layer/transport/etc with an
> appropriately narrow is_XX() test like Doug was suggesting.
Sounds like a good plan, I'd like to change the second patch to
introduce these new helpers, later when we come to a good
solution, rework should be far more easier.
>
> That means looking at each code site and determining what it needs,
> making a is_XX for it and a kdoc describing exactly what is needed for
> the test to return true.
Basically I found there are three kind of check in current
implementation:
1. check transport type of device only
I'd like to use helper has_XX(device)
which means some port of the device has XX capability.
2. check link layer of device's port only
I'd like to use helper cap_XX(device, port)
which means the port has XX capability
3. check both the transport type and link layer
I'd like to use helper tech_XX(device, port)
which means the port of that device using technology
ib, iwrap, iboe(roce) ...
>
> The follow on patch can then rework the is_XX and drop the link
> layer/transport stuff..
>
> Some ideas for is_XX:
> IB compatible SA
> QP0 SMP mechanism
> IB SMP format
> OPA SMP format
> QP1 GMP mechanism
> IB compatible CM
> GID addressing
> IP/IPv6 addressing
> Ethernet VLAN
> ...
Let's discuss and figure out the right name in the thread of
v2 patch set, I guess there will be a lot to be correct :-P
Regards,
Michael Wang
>
> Jason
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists