[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250320201200.GL206770@nvidia.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2025 17:12:00 -0300
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
To: Sean Hefty <shefty@...dia.com>
Cc: Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@...wei.com>,
Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@...abrica.net>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"shrijeet@...abrica.net" <shrijeet@...abrica.net>,
"alex.badea@...sight.com" <alex.badea@...sight.com>,
"eric.davis@...adcom.com" <eric.davis@...adcom.com>,
"rip.sohan@....com" <rip.sohan@....com>,
"dsahern@...nel.org" <dsahern@...nel.org>,
"bmt@...ich.ibm.com" <bmt@...ich.ibm.com>,
"roland@...abrica.net" <roland@...abrica.net>,
"winston.liu@...sight.com" <winston.liu@...sight.com>,
"dan.mihailescu@...sight.com" <dan.mihailescu@...sight.com>,
"kheib@...hat.com" <kheib@...hat.com>,
"parth.v.parikh@...sight.com" <parth.v.parikh@...sight.com>,
"davem@...hat.com" <davem@...hat.com>,
"ian.ziemba@....com" <ian.ziemba@....com>,
"andrew.tauferner@...nelisnetworks.com" <andrew.tauferner@...nelisnetworks.com>,
"welch@....com" <welch@....com>,
"rakhahari.bhunia@...sight.com" <rakhahari.bhunia@...sight.com>,
"kingshuk.mandal@...sight.com" <kingshuk.mandal@...sight.com>,
"linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org" <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
"kuba@...nel.org" <kuba@...nel.org>,
"pabeni@...hat.com" <pabeni@...hat.com>,
huchunzhi <huchunzhi@...wei.com>,
"jerry.lilijun@...wei.com" <jerry.lilijun@...wei.com>,
"zhangkun09@...wei.com" <zhangkun09@...wei.com>,
"wang.chihyung@...wei.com" <wang.chihyung@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/13] Ultra Ethernet driver introduction
On Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 08:05:05PM +0000, Sean Hefty wrote:
> > > As the existing rdma subsystem doesn't seems to support the above use
> > > case yet
> >
> > Why would you say that? If EFA needs SRD and RDM objects in RDMA they
> > can create them, it is not a big issue. To my knowledge they haven't asked for
> > them.
>
> When looking at how to integrate UET support into verbs, there were
> changes relevant to this discussion that I found needed.
>
> 1. Allow an RDMA device to indicate that it supports multiple transports, separated per port.
> 2. Specify the QP type separate from the protocol.
> 3. Define a reliable, unconnected QP type.
>
> Lin might be referring to 2 (assuming 3 is resolved).
That's at a verbs level though, at the kernel uAPI level we already have
various ways to do all three..
What you say makes sense to me for verbs.
Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists