[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <552632C4.3070202@profitbricks.com>
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2015 10:05:24 +0200
From: Michael Wang <yun.wang@...fitbricks.com>
To: "Hefty, Sean" <sean.hefty@...el.com>,
Roland Dreier <roland@...nel.org>,
"linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org" <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org" <linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org>
CC: Hal Rosenstock <hal.rosenstock@...il.com>,
Tom Tucker <tom@...ngridcomputing.com>,
Steve Wise <swise@...ngridcomputing.com>,
Hoang-Nam Nguyen <hnguyen@...ibm.com>,
Christoph Raisch <raisch@...ibm.com>,
infinipath <infinipath@...el.com>, Eli Cohen <eli@...lanox.com>,
"Latif, Faisal" <faisal.latif@...el.com>,
Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@...marydata.com>,
"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
"Weiny, Ira" <ira.weiny@...el.com>,
PJ Waskiewicz <pj.waskiewicz@...idfire.com>,
"Nikolova, Tatyana E" <tatyana.e.nikolova@...el.com>,
Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@...lanox.com>,
Jack Morgenstein <jackm@....mellanox.co.il>,
Haggai Eran <haggaie@...lanox.com>,
Ilya Nelkenbaum <ilyan@...lanox.com>,
Yann Droneaud <ydroneaud@...eya.com>,
Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>,
Shachar Raindel <raindel@...lanox.com>,
Sagi Grimberg <sagig@...lanox.com>,
Devesh Sharma <devesh.sharma@...lex.com>,
Matan Barak <matanb@...lanox.com>,
Moni Shoua <monis@...lanox.com>, Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
Selvin Xavier <selvin.xavier@...lex.com>,
Mitesh Ahuja <mitesh.ahuja@...lex.com>,
Li RongQing <roy.qing.li@...il.com>,
Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
"Estrin, Alex" <alex.estrin@...el.com>,
Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Erez Shitrit <erezsh@...lanox.com>,
Tom Gundersen <teg@...m.no>,
Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 13/17] IB/Verbs: Reform cma/ucma with management helpers
On 04/08/2015 07:02 PM, Hefty, Sean wrote:
[snip]
>>
>> The wrapper make sense, but do we have the guarantee that IBoE port won't
>> be used for AF_IB address? I just can't locate the place we filtered it
>> out...
>
> I can't think of a reason why IBoE wouldn't work with AF_IB, but I'm not sure if anyone has tested it. The original check would have let IBoE through. When I suggested checking for IB transport, I meant the actual transport protocol, which would have included both IB and IBoE.
Got it :-)
>
>>>> @@ -700,8 +700,7 @@ static int cma_ib_init_qp_attr(struct
[snip]
>
>>>> id_priv->id.route.addr.dev_addr.dev_type =
>>>> - (rdma_port_get_link_layer(cma_dev->device, p) ==
>>>> IB_LINK_LAYER_INFINIBAND) ?
>>>> + (rdma_transport_ib(cma_dev->device, p)) ?
>>>> ARPHRD_INFINIBAND : ARPHRD_ETHER;
>>>
>>> This wants the link layer, or maybe use cap_ipoib.
>>
>> Is this related with ipoib only?
>
> ARPHDR_INFINIBAND is related to ipoib. In your next update, maybe go with tech_ib. I don't know the status of ipoib over iboe.
Will be in next version :-)
Regards,
Michael Wang
>
--
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