On 08/10/2010 12:14 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 09:59:50AM -0700, Hefty, Sean wrote: > >>> The general parameters would be the same as for RC. Should we create a new >>> ai_flag ? or a new port space ? >> >> There's a ai_qp_type field available. I think the RDMA TCP port >> space would work. > > Not sure the port space matters at all? > > Is there anything additional CM information for XRC other than > requesting an XRC QP type? (XRCSRQ or something?)
Creating a send or receive XRC QP is using a different API (ibv_create_qp vs ibv_create_xrc_rcv_qp) so I used the max_send_wr capability attribute to discriminate between both cases. That's the only visible change to the API. On 7/30, I posted a patch to perftest rdmb_bw to show how it's used. > >>> Is it really necessary to support rdma_getaddrinfo, rdma_create_ep and the >>> new APIs ? >> >> I think so, yes. At least XRC needs to be handled, even if some of >> the calls just fail as unsupported. > > I'd like to see a strong rational for leaving any of the new API > unsupported for XRC - IMHO it should all be doable. The new API is > supposed to be simplifying, we want people to use it.. No rational, besides that someone has to write some code :) Regards, Frank. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
