Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757411AbbDPObp (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Apr 2015 10:31:45 -0400 Received: from mga03.intel.com ([134.134.136.65]:32469 "EHLO mga03.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753001AbbDPObh (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Apr 2015 10:31:37 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.11,588,1422950400"; d="scan'208";a="696312326" From: "Hefty, Sean" To: Michael Wang , Hal Rosenstock CC: Roland Dreier , Hal Rosenstock , "linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Tom Tucker , Steve Wise , Hoang-Nam Nguyen , Christoph Raisch , infinipath , Eli Cohen , "Latif, Faisal" , Jack Morgenstein , "Or Gerlitz" , Haggai Eran , "Weiny, Ira" , Tom Talpey , Jason Gunthorpe , Doug Ledford Subject: RE: [PATCH v4 10/27] IB/Verbs: Reform cm related part in IB-core cma/ucm Thread-Topic: [PATCH v4 10/27] IB/Verbs: Reform cm related part in IB-core cma/ucm Thread-Index: AQHQeByESK9SrXF5gUqrmqf2oexT451QEpgAgAACiID//52zoA== Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 14:31:34 +0000 Message-ID: <1828884A29C6694DAF28B7E6B8A82373A8FC22C3@ORSMSX109.amr.corp.intel.com> References: <552F6CF2.4000606@profitbricks.com> <552F6DEA.9080701@profitbricks.com> <552FB4D0.5080302@dev.mellanox.co.il> <552FB6EF.80107@profitbricks.com> In-Reply-To: <552FB6EF.80107@profitbricks.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.22.254.139] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from base64 to 8bit by nfs id t3GEVnB0021955 Content-Length: 980 Lines: 18 > > This is equivalent to today where the checks are per node rather than > > per port. > > > > Should all checks here be port 1 based or only certain ones like listen > > ? For example, in connect/reject/disconnect, don't we already have port > > ? Guess this can be dealt with later as this is not a regression from > > the current implementation. > > Yeah, these parts of cma may need more carve in future, like some new > callback > for different CM type as Sean suggested. > > Maybe directly using 1 could help to highlight the problem ;-) Only a few checks need to be per device. I think I pointed those out previously. Testing should show anywhere that we miss fairly quickly, since port would still be 0. For the checks that can be updated to be per port, I would rather go ahead and convert them. - Sean ????{.n?+???????+%?????ݶ??w??{.n?+????{??G?????{ay?ʇڙ?,j??f???h?????????z_??(?階?ݢj"???m??????G????????????&???~???iO???z??v?^?m???? ????????I?