Message-ID: <552CC84C.60101@profitbricks.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 09:57:00 +0200
From: Michael Wang <yun.wang@profitbricks.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com>,
        "Hefty, Sean" <sean.hefty@intel.com>
CC: "Weiny, Ira" <ira.weiny@intel.com>, Roland Dreier <roland@kernel.org>,
        Hal Rosenstock <hal.rosenstock@gmail.com>,
        "linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org" <linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Tom Tucker <tom@opengridcomputing.com>,
        Steve Wise <swise@opengridcomputing.com>,
        Hoang-Nam Nguyen <hnguyen@de.ibm.com>,
        Christoph Raisch <raisch@de.ibm.com>,
        infinipath <infinipath@intel.com>, Eli Cohen <eli@mellanox.com>,
        "Latif, Faisal" <faisal.latif@intel.com>,
        Jack Morgenstein <jackm@dev.mellanox.co.il>,
        Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@mellanox.com>, Haggai Eran <haggaie@mellanox.com>,
        Tom Talpey <tom@talpey.com>, Doug Ledford <dledford@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 04/28] IB/Verbs: Reform IB-core cm
References: <552BB470.4090407@profitbricks.com> <552BB552.1030905@profitbricks.com> <20150413181248.GA2464@phlsvsds.ph.intel.com> <1828884A29C6694DAF28B7E6B8A82373A8FC0A3A@ORSMSX109.amr.corp.intel.com> <20150413192930.GA18587@obsidianresearch.com>
In-Reply-To: <20150413192930.GA18587@obsidianresearch.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1366
Lines: 46


On 04/13/2015 09:29 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 06:40:35PM +0000, Hefty, Sean wrote:
>>>> -	if (rdma_node_get_transport(ib_device->node_type) !=
>>> RDMA_TRANSPORT_IB)
>>>> -		return;
>>>> +	int count = 0;
>>>
>>> I'm ok with this as an intermediate patch but going forward if we are
>>> going to
>>> have calls like
>>>
>>> static inline int cap_ib_cm_dev(struct ib_device *device)
>>
>> I would rather keep everything to checking per port, not per device.
>> Specifically, because we have code that does this:
> 
> Argee.
> 
> I asked Michael for it and stand by it, the property is per-port, not
> per device. Having the per-device tests just muddles the logic, look
> at the trouble Sean notices in #10 when we are now forced to think of
> things clearly.

The only per-dev checking left is all included in #24 (now may be #10 too),
which is inside:

1. cma_listen_on_dev
2. ib_ucm_add_one

I can't find a good way to apply per-port check in this two, seems like
they are at the stage which not related to port yet... any ideas on how
to improve that?

Regards,
Michael Wang

> 
> Jason
> 
--
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/