[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200703062809.GG4837@unreal>
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2020 09:28:09 +0300
From: Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
Cc: Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>,
Feras Daoud <ferasda@...lanox.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org,
Michael Guralnik <michaelgur@...lanox.com>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH rdma-next 0/2] Create IPoIB QP with specific QP number
On Thu, Jul 02, 2020 at 02:55:41PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 02:01:03PM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > From: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...lanox.com>
> >
> > >From Michael,
> >
> > This series handles IPoIB child interface creation with setting
> > interface's HW address.
> >
> > In current implementation, lladdr requested by user is ignored and
> > overwritten. Child interface gets the same GID as the parent interface
> > and a QP number which is assigned by the underlying drivers.
> >
> > In this series we fix this behavior so that user's requested address is
> > assigned to the newly created interface.
> >
> > As specific QP number request is not supported for all vendors, QP
> > number requested by user will still be overwritten when this is not
> > supported.
> >
> > Behavior of creation of child interfaces through the sysfs mechanism or
> > without specifying a requested address, stays the same.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Michael Guralnik (2):
> > net/mlx5: Enable QP number request when creating IPoIB underlay QP
> > RDMA/ipoib: Handle user-supplied address when creating child
>
> Applied to for-next, thanks
Thanks Jason,
Won't it better that first patch be applied to mlx5-next in order to
avoid possible merge conflicts?
Thanks
>
> Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists