Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752839AbbD1GOU (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Apr 2015 02:14:20 -0400 Received: from mga11.intel.com ([192.55.52.93]:32536 "EHLO mga11.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751028AbbD1GOR (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Apr 2015 02:14:17 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.11,662,1422950400"; d="scan'208";a="686681096" From: "Hefty, Sean" To: Tom Talpey , Doug Ledford CC: "Weiny, Ira" , Michael Wang , Liran Liss , Roland Dreier , Hal Rosenstock , "linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Steve Wise , Jason Gunthorpe , Tom Tucker , Hoang-Nam Nguyen , "raisch@de.ibm.com" , infinipath , Eli Cohen , "Latif, Faisal" , "Jack Morgenstein" , Or Gerlitz , Haggai Eran Subject: RE: [PATCH v6 01/26] IB/Verbs: Implement new callback query_transport() Thread-Topic: [PATCH v6 01/26] IB/Verbs: Implement new callback query_transport() Thread-Index: AQHQfomSVAek42ILlU2yObLgYwZdNJ1culuAgAQ4ZICAAO5xAIAAKDWAgAAFeQCAAATZgIAACLqAgAAG4QD//9EPYA== Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 06:14:15 +0000 Message-ID: <1828884A29C6694DAF28B7E6B8A82373A8FC819C@ORSMSX109.amr.corp.intel.com> References: <1429878230-11749-1-git-send-email-yun.wang@profitbricks.com> <1429878230-11749-2-git-send-email-yun.wang@profitbricks.com> <553DE799.5050608@profitbricks.com> <20150427215229.GD5347@phlsvsds.ph.intel.com> <553ED159.2090006@talpey.com> <1430181360.44548.35.camel@redhat.com> <553EDA01.9040708@talpey.com> <1430184275.44548.44.camel@redhat.com> <553EE718.1030502@talpey.com> In-Reply-To: <553EE718.1030502@talpey.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.22.254.138] 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 t3S6EU6U017288 Content-Length: 1371 Lines: 17 > > Keep in mind that this enum was Liran's response to Michael's original > > patch. In the enum in Michael's patch, there was both USNIC and > > USNIC_UDP. > > Right! That's why I'm confused. Seems wrong to drop it, right? I think the original USNIC protocol is layered directly over Ethernet. The protocol basically stole an Ethertype (the one used for IBoE/RoCE) and implemented a proprietary protocol instead. I have no idea how you resolve that, but I also don't think it's used anymore. USNIC_UDP is just UDP. > Well, if RoCEv2 uses the same protocol enum, that may introduce new > confusion, for example there will be some new CM handling for UDP encap, > source port selection, and of course vlan/tag assignment, etc. But if > there is support under way, and everyone is clear, then, ok. RoCEv2/IBoUDP shares the same port space as UDP. It has a similar issues as iWarp does sharing state with the main network stack. I'm not aware of any proposal for resolving that. Does it require using a separate IP address? Does it use a port mapper function? Does netdev care for UDP? I'm not sure what USNIC does for this either, but a common solution between USNIC and IBoUDP seems reasonable. ????{.n?+???????+%?????ݶ??w??{.n?+????{??G?????{ay?ʇڙ?,j??f???h?????????z_??(?階?ݢj"???m??????G????????????&???~???iO???z??v?^?m???? ????????I?