Message-ID: <470B8D04.30401@opengridcomputing.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2007 09:15:32 -0500
From: Steve Wise <swise@opengridcomputing.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (X11/20070326)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Roland Dreier <rdreier@cisco.com>
CC: general@lists.openfabrics.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [ofa-general] Updated InfiniBand/RDMA merge plans for 2.6.24
References: <adaodfdkv59.fsf@cisco.com>	<47090708.6060604@opengridcomputing.com> <adair5hjh64.fsf@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <adair5hjh64.fsf@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1333
Lines: 38


Roland Dreier wrote:
>  > No mention about the iwarp port space issue?
> 
> I don't think we're at a stage where I'm prepared to merge something--
> we all agree the latest patch has serious drawbacks, and it commits us
> to a suboptimal interface that is userspace-visible.
> 

Fair enough.

>  > I'm at a loss as to how to proceed.
> 
> Could we try to do some cleanups to the net core to make the alias
> stuff less painful?  eg is there any sane way to make it possible for
> a device that creates 'eth0' to also create an 'iw0' alias without an
> assigning an address?
> 

Well, "alias" interfaces really don't exist.  ethX:iw is really just 
adding a address record (struct in_ifaddr) to ethX.  So in the current 
core design, adding an alias without an address is really adding the 
alias with address 0.0.0.0.  And I think the core net code assumes if an 
in_ifaddr struct exists for a device, then its IP address is indeed valid.

So I think the changes wouldn't be small to enhance the design to add a 
concept of an alias interface.

I'll look into this more though.

Steve.

-
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/