On Mon, Mar 07, 2005 at 11:14:07AM -0800, Sean Hefty wrote: > Roland Dreier wrote: > > 1. Don't worry about checking. There's nothing too evil a CM user > > can do with a QP beyond getting another QP to connect to it, since > > the CM user can't modify a QP unless it legitimately owns it. And > > an evil user can always guess the QPN instead of the QP handle anyway. > > > > 2. Change the CM API so that it just takes the QPN, QP type, SRQ > > status and device directly rather than reading it out of the QP. > > This lets the userspace CM just get the info from userspace > > without needing to look at the QP at all. Of course it does raise > > the issue of how userspace should specify the device. > > > > 3. Merge the userspace CM into userspace verbs support so they use > > the same context. Ugh. > > > > Personally I would lean slightly towards #2, since it feels to me like > > even the kernel CM API would be cleaner that way. However I don't > > have a good answer for how userspace should specify which device to > > use. > > Which of these options is being used? It seems like option #2 would > work as long as there's a way to locate a device based on a GID.
Sean, I'm not sure there's an easy way to perform a port source GID to device lookup, did you have something specific in mind for the lookup? Unless there's an easy way to do this, I was going to go ahead with #1... -Libor _______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list [email protected] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
