On Thu, Apr 01, 2010 at 11:00:44AM -0700, Sean Hefty wrote: > >I know we talked about this, but seeing this patch makes me ask again, > >should the QKEY be part of sockaddr_ib? Or at least be settable somehow? > I think so. I'm not sure of the best approach. With these patches, > the qkey seems to be the one thing blocking the rdma_cm from > supporting any IB UD application.
Right.. qkey is kinda a funny thing, and pkey too I suppose. I'm not sure, I don't really know the usage model for qkey.. > Another item that I wonder about putting into sockaddr_ib is the SL. > There's a way to set it today, but I wonder if it should be part of > sockaddr_ib anyway. SL is the LRH form of TClass/FlowLabel, like sockaddr_in6 sockaddr_ib should have those two. If you want to control the SL then I think it is reasonable that you'd have to use the APIs you added to set the entire path record. Jason -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
