Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S966048AbbD1O30 (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Apr 2015 10:29:26 -0400 Received: from mail-wi0-f171.google.com ([209.85.212.171]:33451 "EHLO mail-wi0-f171.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965887AbbD1O3X (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Apr 2015 10:29:23 -0400 Message-ID: <553F993A.8030805@profitbricks.com> Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 16:29:14 +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: Doug Ledford , Tom Talpey CC: "ira.weiny" , Liran Liss , Roland Dreier , Sean Hefty , 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" , Mike Marciniszyn , Eli Cohen , Faisal Latif , Jack Morgenstein , Or Gerlitz , Haggai Eran Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 01/26] IB/Verbs: Implement new callback query_transport() 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> In-Reply-To: <1430184275.44548.44.camel@redhat.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: 2234 Lines: 58 On 04/28/2015 03:24 AM, Doug Ledford wrote: [snip] >>>> Also wondering, why add "UDP" to USNIC, is there a different USNIC? >>> >>> Yes, there are two transports, one a distinct ethertype and one that >>> encapsulates USNIC in UDP. >> >> But this new enum isn't about transport, it's about protocol. So is >> there one USNIC protocol, with a raw layering and a separate one with >> UDP? Or is it one USNIC protocol with two different framings? Seems >> there should be at least the USNIC protocol, without the _UDP >> decoration, and I don't see it in the enum. > > 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. Yeah, I've not enum PROTOCOL_USNIC since currently there is no place need it... The only three cases currently are: 1. trasnport IB, link layer IB //PROTOCOL_IB 2. transport IB, link layer ETH //PROTOCOL_IBOE 3. transport IWARP //PROTOCOL_IWARP Regards, Michael Wang > >>> >>>> Naming multiple layers together seems confusing and maybe in the end >>>> will create more code to deal with the differences. For example, what >>>> token will RoCEv2 take? RoCE_UDP, RoCE_v2 or ... ? >>> >>> Uncertain as of now. >> >> Ok, but it's imminent, right? What's the preference/guidance? > > There is a patchset from Devesh Sharma at Emulex. It added the RoCEv2 > capability. As I recall, it used a new flag added to the existing port > capabilities bitmask and notably did not modify either the node type or > link layer that are currently used to differentiate between the > different protocols. That's from memory though, so I could be mistaken. > > But that patchset was not written with this patchset in mind, and > merging the two may well change that. In any case, there is a proposed > spec to follow, so for now that's the preference/guidance (unless this > rework means that we need to depart from the spec on internals for > implementation reasons). > > -- 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/