From: Tom Talpey <tom@talpey.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 01/17] IB/Verbs: Implement new callback query_transport()
 for each HW
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2015 13:50:09 -0400
Message-ID: <55280D51.20402@talpey.com>
References: <5523CCD5.6030401@profitbricks.com>	 <5523D098.3020007@profitbricks.com> <1428517786.2980.180.camel@redhat.com>	 <20150410074805.GA11855@phlsvsds.ph.intel.com> <1428685843.2980.353.camel@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <1428685843.2980.353.camel@redhat.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: Doug Ledford <dledford@redhat.com>, "ira.weiny" <ira.weiny@intel.com>
Cc: Michael Wang <yun.wang@profitbricks.com>, Roland Dreier <roland@kernel.org>, Sean Hefty <sean.hefty@intel.com>, linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, 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>, Mike Marciniszyn <infinipath@intel.com>, Eli Cohen <eli@mellanox.com>, Faisal Latif <faisal.latif@intel.com>, Upinder Malhi <umalhi@cisco.com>, Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@primarydata.com>, "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>, "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>, PJ Waskiewicz <pj.waskiewicz@solidfire.com>, Tatyana Nikolova <Tatyana.E.Nikolova@intel.com>, Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@mellanox.com>, Jack Morgenstein <jackm@dev.mellanox.co.il>
List-Id: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org

On 4/10/2015 1:10 PM, Doug Ledford wrote:
> As per my above statement, rdma_transport* tests were testing the high
> level transport type, rdma_port* types were testing link layers.  iWARP
> has an Eth link layer, so technically port_is_iwarp makes no sense.  But
> since all the other types had a check too, I included port_is_iwarp just
> to be complete, and if you are going to ask if a specific port is iwarp
> as a link layer, it makes sense to say yes if the transport is iwarp,
> not if the link layer is eth.

Not wanting to split hairs, but I would not rule out the possibility
of a future device supporting iWARP on one port and another RDMA
protocol on another. One could also imagine softiWARP and softROCE
co-existing atop a single ethernet NIC.

So, I disagree that port_is_iwarp() is a nonsequitur.

Tom.