[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1429714792.45956.110.camel@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 10:59:52 -0400
From: Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>
To: Liran Liss <liranl@...lanox.com>
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-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"hal@....mellanox.co.il" <hal@....mellanox.co.il>,
Tom Tucker <tom@...ngridcomputing.com>,
Steve Wise <swise@...ngridcomputing.com>,
Hoang-Nam Nguyen <hnguyen@...ibm.com>,
"raisch@...ibm.com" <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>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 00/27] IB/Verbs: IB Management Helpers
On Tue, 2015-04-21 at 23:36 +0000, Liran Liss wrote:
> Hi Michael,
>
> The spirit of this patch-set is great, but I think that we need to clarify some concepts.
> Since this will affect the whole patch-set, I am laying out my concerns here instead.
>
> A suggestion for the resulting management helpers is given below.
> I believe the result would be much more coherent.
> --Liran
>
> In general
> ========
>
> An ib_dev (or a port of) should be distinguished by 3 qualifiers:
> - The link layer:
> -- Ethernet (shared by iWARP, USNIC, and ROCE)
> -- Infiniband
>
> - The transport (*)
> -- IBTA transport (shared by IB and ROCE)
> -- iWARP transport
> -- USNIC transport
>
> (*) Transport means both:
> - The L4 wire protocols (e.g., BTH+ headers of IBTA, optionally encapsulated by UDP in ROCEv2, or the iWARP stack)
> - The transport semantics (for example, there are slight semantic differences between IBTA and iWARP)
>
> - The node type (**)
> -- CA
> -- Switch
> -- Router
>
> (**) This has been extended to also encode the transport in the current code.
> At least for user-space visible APIs, we might chose to leave this for backward compatibility, but we can consider cleaning up the kernel code.
>
> So, I think that our "old-transport" below is just fine.
> No need to change it (and you aren't, since it is currently implemented as a function).
>
> The "new-transport" does not really exist, but is broken into several capability checks of the L4 transport, optionally with conditions on the link type.
> I would remove the table below and tell what we really want to achieve:
> ==> move technology-specific feature-check logic out of the (multiple!) IB code components and various ULPs into per-feature helpers.
>
>
> Detailed remarks
> ==============
>
> 1) The introduction of cap_*_*() stuff should have been introduced directly in patch 02/27.
> This back-and-forth between rdma_ib_or_iboe() and cap_* is confusing and increases the number of patches in the patch-set.
> Do this and remove patches 16-24.
>
> 2)The name rdma_tech_* is lame.
> rdma_transport_*(), adhering to the above (*) remark, is much better.
> For example, both IB and ROCE *do* use the same transport.
I especially want to second this. I haven't really been happy with the
rdma_tech_* names at all.
--
Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>
GPG KeyID: 0E572FDD
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (820 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists