> > On May 10, 2015, at 11:42 PM, ira.weiny <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Tue, May 05, 2015 at 08:22:21PM +0000, Dave Goodell (dgoodell) wrote: > >> > >> In the case that usNIC is operating in UDP mode (which is the overwhelming > majority of the cases), there is absolutely no additional protocol that ends > up on > the wire or headers in the user buffers besides UDP/IP/Ethernet. They are > 100% plain UDP packets, they just happen to be sent via OS-bypass queues > instead of traveling through the kernel networking stack. > >> > >> [^^^^^ there continues to be confusion about this for some reason, but I > don't know why] > > > > So what is this patch for? > > Does my earlier email clarify the situation any? http://marc.info/?l=linux- > rdma&m=142972178630720&w=2
Somewhat, is there any reason applications need to distinguish between the " The legacy RDMA_TRANSPORT_USNIC type" and " The current RDMA_TRANSPORT_USNIC_UDP type"? Or does the former no longer exist? > > > commit 248567f79304b953ea492fb92ade097b62ed09b2 > > Author: Upinder Malhi <[email protected]> > > Date: Thu Jan 9 14:48:19 2014 -0800 > > > > IB/core: Add RDMA_TRANSPORT_USNIC_UDP > > > > Add RDMA_TRANSPORT_USNIC_UDP which will be used by usNIC. > > > > Signed-off-by: Upinder Malhi <[email protected]> > > Signed-off-by: Roland Dreier <[email protected]> > > > > This is probably where a lot of the confusion is coming from. > > Arguably RDMA_TRANSPORT_USNIC_UDP could/should have simply been > named RDMA_TRANSPORT_UDP. I guess I'm wondering if there needs to be an RDMA_TRANSPORT_USNIC to represent the " The legacy RDMA_TRANSPORT_USNIC type" you mention in the link above. Ira -- 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
