On 03/27/2015 04:55 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 10:52:10AM +0100, Michael Wang wrote:
>> [snip]
> So, in principle, testing the device should almost make sense. The
> device is the container for things like PD's MR's and QP's and those
> things can migrate between the
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 10:52:10AM +0100, Michael Wang wrote:
> Basically I found there are three kind of check in current
> implementation:
>
> 1. check transport type of device only
> I'd like to use helper has_XX(device)
> which means some port of the device has XX capability.
>
> 2.
Hi, Jason
Thanks for the reply :-)
On 03/26/2015 10:13 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 05:58:20PM +0100, Michael Wang wrote:
>
>> The questions is just wondering how the transition method could be, but
>> if we have to do the changes for vendor, that sounds like a tough
Hi, Jason
Thanks for the reply :-)
On 03/26/2015 10:13 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 05:58:20PM +0100, Michael Wang wrote:
The questions is just wondering how the transition method could be, but
if we have to do the changes for vendor, that sounds like a tough job...
I
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 10:52:10AM +0100, Michael Wang wrote:
Basically I found there are three kind of check in current
implementation:
1. check transport type of device only
I'd like to use helper has_XX(device)
which means some port of the device has XX capability.
2. check
On 03/27/2015 04:55 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 10:52:10AM +0100, Michael Wang wrote:
[snip]
So, in principle, testing the device should almost make sense. The
device is the container for things like PD's MR's and QP's and those
things can migrate between the ports
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 05:58:20PM +0100, Michael Wang wrote:
> The questions is just wondering how the transition method could be, but
> if we have to do the changes for vendor, that sounds like a tough job...
I would see changing how the information is represented in the struct
as a follow on
On 03/26/2015 05:27 PM, Doug Ledford wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-03-26 at 17:04 +0100, Michael Wang wrote:
>> [snip]
>>
>> Few more questions here is:
>> 1. when to setup? (maybe inside ib_register_device() before doing
>> client->add() callback?)
> I don't think "we" can set it up here. The driver's
On Thu, 2015-03-26 at 17:04 +0100, Michael Wang wrote:
> Hi, Doug
>
> Thanks for the excellent comments :-)
>
> On 03/26/2015 03:09 PM, Doug Ledford wrote:
> > On Wed, 2015-03-25 at 16:09 +0100, Michael Wang wrote:
> >> [snip]
> >>
> > [snip]
> >
> > So, I would suggest that we fix things up
Hi, Doug
Thanks for the excellent comments :-)
On 03/26/2015 03:09 PM, Doug Ledford wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-03-25 at 16:09 +0100, Michael Wang wrote:
>> [snip]
>>
> [snip]
>
> So, I would suggest that we fix things up thusly:
>
> enum transport {
> TRANSPORT_IB=1,
> TRANSPORT_IWARP=2,
On Wed, 2015-03-25 at 16:09 +0100, Michael Wang wrote:
> My sincerely apologies for the corrupted mails, and thanks for Dan's kindly
> remind :-)
>
> There are too many lengthy code to check the transport type of IB device,
> or the link layer type of it's port, this patch set try to use some
On Thu, 2015-03-26 at 17:04 +0100, Michael Wang wrote:
Hi, Doug
Thanks for the excellent comments :-)
On 03/26/2015 03:09 PM, Doug Ledford wrote:
On Wed, 2015-03-25 at 16:09 +0100, Michael Wang wrote:
[snip]
[snip]
So, I would suggest that we fix things up thusly:
enum
On 03/26/2015 05:27 PM, Doug Ledford wrote:
On Thu, 2015-03-26 at 17:04 +0100, Michael Wang wrote:
[snip]
Few more questions here is:
1. when to setup? (maybe inside ib_register_device() before doing
client-add() callback?)
I don't think we can set it up here. The driver's have to set it
Hi, Doug
Thanks for the excellent comments :-)
On 03/26/2015 03:09 PM, Doug Ledford wrote:
On Wed, 2015-03-25 at 16:09 +0100, Michael Wang wrote:
[snip]
[snip]
So, I would suggest that we fix things up thusly:
enum transport {
TRANSPORT_IB=1,
TRANSPORT_IWARP=2,
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 05:58:20PM +0100, Michael Wang wrote:
The questions is just wondering how the transition method could be, but
if we have to do the changes for vendor, that sounds like a tough job...
I would see changing how the information is represented in the struct
as a follow on
On Wed, 2015-03-25 at 16:09 +0100, Michael Wang wrote:
My sincerely apologies for the corrupted mails, and thanks for Dan's kindly
remind :-)
There are too many lengthy code to check the transport type of IB device,
or the link layer type of it's port, this patch set try to use some helper
My sincerely apologies for the corrupted mails, and thanks for Dan's kindly
remind :-)
There are too many lengthy code to check the transport type of IB device,
or the link layer type of it's port, this patch set try to use some helper to
refine and save us some code.
TODO:
Currently we
My sincerely apologies for the corrupted mails, and thanks for Dan's kindly
remind :-)
There are too many lengthy code to check the transport type of IB device,
or the link layer type of it's port, this patch set try to use some helper to
refine and save us some code.
TODO:
Currently we
18 matches
Mail list logo
