Sean Hefty <sean.he...@intel.com> wrote: >>When used over IB, the IP address is little more than a qualifier contained >>within the IB CM REQ private data. > > If we added support for AF_GID/AF_IB to the kernel, the rdma_cm could leave > all > of the private data carried in the IB CM REQ entirely up to the user. If the > user happens to format that data to look like the CMA header, so be it. I > believe this would allow for a 'clean' implementation of rdma_resolve_addr, > preserve the ABI, and still allow a library to provide backwards > compatibility.
Sean, So in this design librdmacm will change the user supplied AF_XXX in the provided sock address and set it to AF_GID/IB, sounds okay. > Would this approach combined with the ability to set the route work for > everyone? yes, it makes sense. However, I don't manage to follow on your port space discussion with Jason. Some apps may have client in user space and server in the kernel or vise versa. I wouldn't tie PS_IB or a like with ACM. The ACM ARP replacement protocol will reply only if the ip address specified in the broadcast request is an ip of this host on that pkey and a port connected to that fabric, correct? Or. -- 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
