From: Michael Wang <yun.wang@profitbricks.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 13/17] IB/Verbs: Reform cma/ucma with management helpers
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2015 10:05:24 +0200
Message-ID: <552632C4.3070202@profitbricks.com>
References: <5523CCD5.6030401@profitbricks.com> <5523CF74.8020004@profitbricks.com> <1828884A29C6694DAF28B7E6B8A82373A8FBE42B@ORSMSX109.amr.corp.intel.com> <5524F6BD.30105@profitbricks.com> <1828884A29C6694DAF28B7E6B8A82373A8FBF037@ORSMSX109.amr.corp.intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <1828884A29C6694DAF28B7E6B8A82373A8FBF037@ORSMSX109.amr.corp.intel.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: "Hefty, Sean" <sean.hefty@intel.com>, Roland Dreier <roland@kernel.org>, "linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org" <linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org>, "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, "linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org" <linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: Hal Rosenstock <hal.rosenstock@gmail.com>, Tom Tucker <tom@opengridcomputing.com>, Steve Wise <swise@opengridcomputing.com>, Hoang-Nam Nguyen <hnguyen@de.ibm.com>, Christoph Raisch <raisch@de.ibm.com>, infinipath <infinipath@intel.com>, Eli Cohen <eli@mellanox.com>, "Latif, Faisal" <faisal.latif@intel.com>, Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@primarydata.com>, "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>, "Weiny, Ira" <ira.weiny@intel.com>, PJ Waskiewicz <pj.waskiewicz@solidfire.com>, "Nikolova, Tatyana E" <tatyana.e.nikolova@intel.com>, Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@mellanox.com>, Jack Morgenstein <jackm@dev.mellanox.co.il>, Haggai Eran <haggaie@mellanox.com>, Ilya Nelkenbaum <ilyan@mellanox.com>, Yann Droneaud <ydroneaud@opteya.com>, Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>, Shachar Raindel <raindel@mellanox.com>, Sagi Grimberg <sagig@mellanox.com>, Devesh Sharma <devesh.sharma@emu>
List-Id: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org

On 04/08/2015 07:02 PM, Hefty, Sean wrote:
[snip]
>>
>> The wrapper make sense, but do we have the guarantee that IBoE port won't
>> be used for AF_IB address? I just can't locate the place we filtered it
>> out...
> 
> I can't think of a reason why IBoE wouldn't work with AF_IB, but I'm not sure if anyone has tested it.  The original check would have let IBoE through.  When I suggested checking for IB transport, I meant the actual transport protocol, which would have included both IB and IBoE.

Got it :-)

> 
>>>> @@ -700,8 +700,7 @@ static int cma_ib_init_qp_attr(struct
[snip]
> 
>>>>  	id_priv->id.route.addr.dev_addr.dev_type =
>>>> -		(rdma_port_get_link_layer(cma_dev->device, p) ==
>>>> IB_LINK_LAYER_INFINIBAND) ?
>>>> +		(rdma_transport_ib(cma_dev->device, p)) ?
>>>>  		ARPHRD_INFINIBAND : ARPHRD_ETHER;
>>>
>>> This wants the link layer, or maybe use cap_ipoib.
>>
>> Is this related with ipoib only?
> 
> ARPHDR_INFINIBAND is related to ipoib.  In your next update, maybe go with tech_ib.  I don't know the status of ipoib over iboe.

Will be in next version :-)

Regards,
Michael Wang

>