On Sun, 2006-04-09 at 17:34, Roland Dreier wrote: > Eitan> I thought the intent of the IB spec when defining P_Key > Eitan> index usage (and not P_Key value) was that the P_Key values > Eitan> would never need to be known above the driver level. To > Eitan> avoid exposing the P_Key values we could use P_Key index > Eitan> for creating the IPoIB interfaces. > > Eitan> Does it make sense to work on a patch that would setup > Eitan> IPoIB interfaces by the P_Key index (and not by P_Key > Eitan> value)? > > I don't see how this is feasible. The index that a particular P_Key > lands at is completely undetermined -- if two nodes wanted to talk on > partition 0x8001 say, how does one know which interface to use without > knowing the index of that P_Key? > > Eitan> Also I think the expected behavior for IPoIB should be that > Eitan> IPoIB "child" interfaces should be "automatically" > Eitan> initialized by the code that brings up the interface > Eitan> (ifconfig scripts). All valid IPoIB partitions (valid = > Eitan> have corresponding broadcast groups) should be > Eitan> initialized. By doing so we provide a centralized control > Eitan> of the partitions and their IPoIB interfaces through the > Eitan> SM. > > Not sure if this is so. I may want a partition strictly for storage > traffic something like that, so it doesn't make sense to create an > IPoIB interface for that partition.
Couldn't it be done based on the existence of the appropriate IPoIB broadcast group for that partition ? -- Hal _______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list [email protected] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
