Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754944AbbDIIFf (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Apr 2015 04:05:35 -0400 Received: from mail-wi0-f182.google.com ([209.85.212.182]:36499 "EHLO mail-wi0-f182.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751704AbbDIIF3 (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Apr 2015 04:05:29 -0400 Message-ID: <552632C4.3070202@profitbricks.com> Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2015 10:05:24 +0200 From: Michael Wang User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Hefty, Sean" , Roland Dreier , "linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org" CC: Hal Rosenstock , Tom Tucker , Steve Wise , Hoang-Nam Nguyen , Christoph Raisch , infinipath , Eli Cohen , "Latif, Faisal" , Trond Myklebust , "J. Bruce Fields" , "Weiny, Ira" , PJ Waskiewicz , "Nikolova, Tatyana E" , Or Gerlitz , Jack Morgenstein , Haggai Eran , Ilya Nelkenbaum , Yann Droneaud , Bart Van Assche , Shachar Raindel , Sagi Grimberg , Devesh Sharma , Matan Barak , Moni Shoua , Jiri Kosina , Selvin Xavier , Mitesh Ahuja , Li RongQing , Rasmus Villemoes , "Estrin, Alex" , Doug Ledford , Eric Dumazet , Erez Shitrit , Tom Gundersen , Chuck Lever Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 13/17] IB/Verbs: Reform cma/ucma with management helpers References: <5523CCD5.6030401@profitbricks.com> <5523CF74.8020004@profitbricks.com> <1828884A29C6694DAF28B7E6B8A82373A8FBE42B@ORSMSX109.amr.corp.intel.com> <5524F6BD.30105@profitbricks.com> <1828884A29C6694DAF28B7E6B8A82373A8FBF037@ORSMSX109.amr.corp.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <1828884A29C6694DAF28B7E6B8A82373A8FBF037@ORSMSX109.amr.corp.intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1354 Lines: 38 On 04/08/2015 07:02 PM, Hefty, Sean wrote: [snip] >> >> The wrapper make sense, but do we have the guarantee that IBoE port won't >> be used for AF_IB address? I just can't locate the place we filtered it >> out... > > I can't think of a reason why IBoE wouldn't work with AF_IB, but I'm not sure if anyone has tested it. The original check would have let IBoE through. When I suggested checking for IB transport, I meant the actual transport protocol, which would have included both IB and IBoE. Got it :-) > >>>> @@ -700,8 +700,7 @@ static int cma_ib_init_qp_attr(struct [snip] > >>>> id_priv->id.route.addr.dev_addr.dev_type = >>>> - (rdma_port_get_link_layer(cma_dev->device, p) == >>>> IB_LINK_LAYER_INFINIBAND) ? >>>> + (rdma_transport_ib(cma_dev->device, p)) ? >>>> ARPHRD_INFINIBAND : ARPHRD_ETHER; >>> >>> This wants the link layer, or maybe use cap_ipoib. >> >> Is this related with ipoib only? > > ARPHDR_INFINIBAND is related to ipoib. In your next update, maybe go with tech_ib. I don't know the status of ipoib over iboe. Will be in next version :-) Regards, Michael Wang > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/