[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150410181143.GA5716@phlsvsds.ph.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2015 14:11:44 -0400
From: "ira.weiny" <ira.weiny@...el.com>
To: Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>
Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com>,
Michael Wang <yun.wang@...fitbricks.com>,
Roland Dreier <roland@...nel.org>,
Sean Hefty <sean.hefty@...el.com>, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, 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>,
Mike Marciniszyn <infinipath@...el.com>,
Eli Cohen <eli@...lanox.com>,
Faisal Latif <faisal.latif@...el.com>,
Upinder Malhi <umalhi@...co.com>,
Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@...marydata.com>,
"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
PJ Waskiewicz <pj.waskiewicz@...idfire.com>,
Tatyana Nikolova <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>,
Alex Estrin <alex.estrin@...el.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 01/17] IB/Verbs: Implement new callback query_transport() for each HW
On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 01:49:32PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-04-10 at 13:38 -0400, ira.weiny wrote:
>
>
> > > I think if we look closely we'll find that IPoIB today has a hard
> > > requirement on cap_sa being true, so lets use that?
> >
> > I don't think that is appropriate. You have been advocating that the checks
> > be clear as to what support we need. While currently the IPoIB layer does (for
> > IB and OPA) require an SA I think those checks are only appropriate when it is
> > attempting an SA query.
> >
> > The choice to run IPoIB at all is a different matter.
>
> Appropriately named or not, Jason's choice of words "has a hard
> requirement" is correct ;-)
Agreed. I meant that using "cap_sa" is not appropriate. Not that IPoIB did
not have a hard requirement... :-D
I actually think that _both_ the check for IB link layer and the "cap_sa" is
required. Perhaps not at start up...
Ira
--
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