On 4/16/2015 11:22 AM, Michael Wang wrote:
On 04/16/2015 04:31 PM, Hefty, Sean wrote:
This is equivalent to today where the checks are per node rather than
per port.
Should all checks here be port 1 based or only certain ones like listen
? For example, in connect/reject/disconnect, don't we already have port
? Guess this can be dealt with later as this is not a regression from
the current implementation.
Yeah, these parts of cma may need more carve in future, like some new
callback
for different CM type as Sean suggested.
Maybe directly using 1 could help to highlight the problem ;-)
Only a few checks need to be per device. I think I pointed those out
previously. Testing should show anywhere that we miss fairly quickly, since
port would still be 0. For the checks that can be updated to be per port, I
would rather go ahead and convert them.
Got it, will be changed in next version :-)
To be confirmed:
PORT ASSIGNED
rdma_init_qp_attr Y
rdma_destroy_id unknown
cma_listen_on_dev N
cma_bind_loopback N
rdma_listen N
Why "N"? rdma_listen() can be constrained to a single port, right?
And even if wildcarded, it needs to act on multiple ports, which is
to say, it will fail only if no ports are eligible.
Tom.
rdma_connect Y
rdma_accept Y
rdma_reject Y
rdma_disconnect Y
ib_ucm_add_one N
Is this list correct?
Regards,
Michael Wang
- Sean
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
