> Index: b/drivers/infiniband/core/verbs.c
> ===================================================================
> --- a/drivers/infiniband/core/verbs.c 2011-09-13 13:34:19.660539000 +0300
> +++ b/drivers/infiniband/core/verbs.c 2011-09-13 16:42:39.713754400 +0300
> @@ -77,6 +77,23 @@ enum ib_rate mult_to_ib_rate(int mult)
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(mult_to_ib_rate);
>
> +int ib_ext_rate_to_int(enum ib_rate rate)
> +{
> + switch (rate) {
> + case IB_RATE_14_GBPS: return 14;
> + case IB_RATE_56_GBPS: return 56;
> + case IB_RATE_112_GBPS: return 112;
> + case IB_RATE_168_GBPS: return 168;
> + case IB_RATE_25_GBPS: return 25;
> + case IB_RATE_100_GBPS: return 100;
> + case IB_RATE_200_GBPS: return 200;
> + case IB_RATE_300_GBPS: return 300;
> + /* For higher speeds report 56 */
> + default: return 56;
> + }
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(ib_ext_rate_to_int);
I don't like the idea of introducing new fields and functions to report the
rate when there are existing ones that should be usable.
> +
> enum rdma_transport_type
> rdma_node_get_transport(enum rdma_node_type node_type)
> {
> Index: b/drivers/infiniband/ulp/ipoib/ipoib_fs.c
> ===================================================================
> --- a/drivers/infiniband/ulp/ipoib/ipoib_fs.c 2011-09-13 13:34:19.666040100
> +0300
> +++ b/drivers/infiniband/ulp/ipoib/ipoib_fs.c 2011-09-13 13:34:25.043115300
> +0300
> @@ -212,16 +212,28 @@ static int ipoib_path_seq_show(struct se
> gid_buf, path.pathrec.dlid ? "yes" : "no");
>
> if (path.pathrec.dlid) {
> - rate = ib_rate_to_mult(path.pathrec.rate) * 25;
> + if (path.pathrec.rate > IB_RATE_120_GBPS) {
> + rate = ib_ext_rate_to_int(path.pathrec.rate);
>
> - seq_printf(file,
> - " DLID: 0x%04x\n"
> - " SL: %12d\n"
> - " rate: %*d%s Gb/sec\n",
> - be16_to_cpu(path.pathrec.dlid),
> - path.pathrec.sl,
> - 10 - ((rate % 10) ? 2 : 0),
> - rate / 10, rate % 10 ? ".5" : "");
> + seq_printf(file,
> + " DLID: 0x%04x\n"
> + " SL: %12d\n"
> + " rate: %*d Gb/sec\n",
> + be16_to_cpu(path.pathrec.dlid),
> + path.pathrec.sl,
> + rate);
> + } else {
> + rate = ib_rate_to_mult(path.pathrec.rate) * 25;
> +
> + seq_printf(file,
> + " DLID: 0x%04x\n"
> + " SL: %12d\n"
> + " rate: %*d%s Gb/sec\n",
> + be16_to_cpu(path.pathrec.dlid),
> + path.pathrec.sl,
> + 10 - ((rate % 10) ? 2 : 0),
> + rate / 10, rate % 10 ? ".5" : "");
> + }
> }
>
> seq_putc(file, '\n');
> Index: b/include/rdma/ib_user_verbs.h
> ===================================================================
> --- a/include/rdma/ib_user_verbs.h 2011-09-13 13:34:19.745055900 +0300
> +++ b/include/rdma/ib_user_verbs.h 2011-09-13 13:34:25.050116700 +0300
> @@ -206,7 +206,8 @@ struct ib_uverbs_query_port_resp {
> __u8 active_speed;
> __u8 phys_state;
> __u8 link_layer;
> - __u8 reserved[2];
> + __u8 ext_active_speed;
> + __u8 reserved;
> };
Why can't we carry the new speed values in the existing active_speed fields?
It seems awkward for a user to need to read 2 fields to get the active speed.
> +static inline int ib_ext_active_speed_to_rate(u8 ext_active_speed)
> +{
> + switch (ext_active_speed) {
> + case 1: return 14;
> + case 2: return 25;
> + default: return -1;
> + }
> +}
> +
> static inline int ib_width_enum_to_int(enum ib_port_width width)
> {
> switch (width) {
> @@ -308,6 +318,7 @@ struct ib_port_attr {
> u8 active_width;
> u8 active_speed;
> u8 phys_state;
> + u8 ext_active_speed;
> };
>
> enum ib_device_modify_flags {
> @@ -415,7 +426,15 @@ enum ib_rate {
> IB_RATE_40_GBPS = 7,
> IB_RATE_60_GBPS = 8,
> IB_RATE_80_GBPS = 9,
> - IB_RATE_120_GBPS = 10
> + IB_RATE_120_GBPS = 10,
> + IB_RATE_14_GBPS = 11,
> + IB_RATE_56_GBPS = 12,
> + IB_RATE_112_GBPS = 13,
> + IB_RATE_168_GBPS = 14,
> + IB_RATE_25_GBPS = 15,
> + IB_RATE_100_GBPS = 16,
> + IB_RATE_200_GBPS = 17,
> + IB_RATE_300_GBPS = 18,
> };
>
> /**
> @@ -427,6 +446,14 @@ enum ib_rate {
> int ib_rate_to_mult(enum ib_rate rate) __attribute_const__;
>
> /**
> + * ib_ext_rate_to_int - Convert the extended IB rate enum to a
> + * real integer value. For example,
> + * IB_RATE_14_GBPS will be converted to 14
> + * @rate: extended rate to convert.
> + */
> +int ib_ext_rate_to_int(enum ib_rate rate) __attribute_const__;
Why can't the existing function be used?
--
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
