[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150416174830.GB23263@obsidianresearch.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 11:48:30 -0600
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com>
To: Hal Rosenstock <hal@....mellanox.co.il>
Cc: Michael Wang <yun.wang@...fitbricks.com>,
Roland Dreier <roland@...nel.org>,
Sean Hefty <sean.hefty@...el.com>,
Hal Rosenstock <hal.rosenstock@...il.com>,
linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
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>,
Jack Morgenstein <jackm@....mellanox.co.il>,
Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@...lanox.com>,
Haggai Eran <haggaie@...lanox.com>,
Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>, Tom Talpey <tom@...pey.com>,
Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 10/27] IB/Verbs: Reform cm related part in IB-core
cma/ucm
On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 01:38:07PM -0400, Hal Rosenstock wrote:
> On 4/16/2015 11:58 AM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > It also looks like hardwired 1 won't work on switch ports, so it is no-go.
>
> AFAIK enhanced switch port 0 is not supported by CM/RDMA CM in the
> current code. There is no need for CM/RDMA CM on base switch port 0.
Hurm, yet another reason to have a proper device level test to capture
all this weirdness. I am surprised to hear this, actually.
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