On 23/06/17 04:06 PM, Allen Hubbe wrote:
> From: Logan Gunthorpe
>> But any translation can be
>> programmed by any peer.
>
> That doesn't seem safe. Even though it can be done as you say, would it not
> be better to have each specific translation under the control of exactly one
> driver?
>
From: Logan Gunthorpe
> But any translation can be
> programmed by any peer.
That doesn't seem safe. Even though it can be done as you say, would it not be
better to have each specific translation under the control of exactly one
driver?
If drivers can reach across and set the translation of a
From: Logan Gunthorpe
> Hey,
>
> Thanks Serge for the detailed explanation. This is pretty much exactly
> as I had thought it should be interpreted. My only problem remains that
> my hardware can't provide ntb_mw_get_align until the port it is asking
> about has configured itself. The easiest way
Hey,
Thanks Serge for the detailed explanation. This is pretty much exactly
as I had thought it should be interpreted. My only problem remains that
my hardware can't provide ntb_mw_get_align until the port it is asking
about has configured itself. The easiest way to solve this is to only
allow acc
On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 03:07:19PM -0400, Allen Hubbe
wrote:
Hello Allen,
> From: Logan Gunthorpe
> > On 23/06/17 07:18 AM, Allen Hubbe wrote:
> > > By "remote" do you mean the source or destination of a write?
> >
> > Look at how these calls are used in ntb_transport and ntb_perf:
> >
> > The
On 23/06/17 01:07 PM, Allen Hubbe wrote:
> The client's haven't been fully ported to the multi-port api yet. They were
> only minimally changed to call the new api, but so far other than that they
> have only been made to work as they had before.
So is it intended to eventually send the align
From: Logan Gunthorpe
> On 23/06/17 07:18 AM, Allen Hubbe wrote:
> > By "remote" do you mean the source or destination of a write?
>
> Look at how these calls are used in ntb_transport and ntb_perf:
>
> They both call ntb_peer_mw_get_addr to get the size of the BAR. The size
> is sent via spads t
On 23/06/17 07:18 AM, Allen Hubbe wrote:
> By "remote" do you mean the source or destination of a write?
Look at how these calls are used in ntb_transport and ntb_perf:
They both call ntb_peer_mw_get_addr to get the size of the BAR. The size
is sent via spads to the other side. The other side t
From: Logan Gunthorpe
> On 6/22/2017 4:42 PM, Allen Hubbe wrote:
> > From: Logan Gunthorpe
> >> Any thoughts on changing the semantics of mw_get_align so it must be
> >> called with the link up?
> >
> > The intention of these is that these calls return information from the
> > local port. The cal
On 6/22/2017 4:42 PM, Allen Hubbe wrote:
From: Logan Gunthorpe
Any thoughts on changing the semantics of mw_get_align so it must be
called with the link up?
The intention of these is that these calls return information from the local
port. The calls themselves don't reach across the link to
From: Logan Gunthorpe
> Any thoughts on changing the semantics of mw_get_align so it must be
> called with the link up?
The intention of these is that these calls return information from the local
port. The calls themselves don't reach across the link to the peer, but the
information returned f
On 6/22/2017 4:12 PM, Allen Hubbe wrote:
The resource size given by peer_mw_get_addr might be different than the
max_size given by ntb_mw_get_align.
I am most familiar with the ntb_hw_intel driver and that type of ntb hardware.
The peer_mw_get_addr size is of the primary bar on the side to be
From: Logan Gunthorpe
> On 6/22/2017 12:32 PM, Allen Hubbe wrote:
> > From: Logan Gunthorpe
> >> 2) The changes to the Intel and AMD driver for mw_get_align sets
> >> *max_size to the local pci resource size. (Thus making the assumption
> >> that the local is the same as the peer, which is wrong).
From: Logan Gunthorpe
> Hey Guys,
>
> I've run into some subtle issues with the new API:
>
> It has to do with splitting mw_get_range into mw_get_align and
> peer_mw_get_addr.
>
> The original mw_get_range returned the size of the /local/ memory
> window's size, address and alignment requirement
On 6/22/2017 12:32 PM, Allen Hubbe wrote:
From: Logan Gunthorpe
Hey Guys,
I've run into some subtle issues with the new API:
It has to do with splitting mw_get_range into mw_get_align and
peer_mw_get_addr.
The original mw_get_range returned the size of the /local/ memory
window's size, addres
Hey Guys,
I've run into some subtle issues with the new API:
It has to do with splitting mw_get_range into mw_get_align and
peer_mw_get_addr.
The original mw_get_range returned the size of the /local/ memory
window's size, address and alignment requirements. The ntb clients then
take the local s
16 matches
Mail list logo