Return-Path: Received: from mail-wi0-f169.google.com ([209.85.212.169]:37929 "EHLO mail-wi0-f169.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932552AbbC0QDS (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Mar 2015 12:03:18 -0400 Received: by wibgn9 with SMTP id gn9so37390075wib.1 for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2015 09:03:17 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <55157F42.1070303@profitbricks.com> Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 17:03:14 +0100 From: Michael Wang MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jason Gunthorpe CC: Doug Ledford , linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, Roland Dreier , Sean Hefty , Hal Rosenstock , Ira Weiny , Trond Myklebust , "J. Bruce Fields" , "David S. Miller" , Moni Shoua , Or Gerlitz , Tatyana Nikolova , Steve Wise , Yan Burman , Jack Morgenstein , Bart Van Assche , Yann Droneaud , Colin Ian King , Jiri Kosina , Matan Barak , Majd Dibbiny , Dan Carpenter , Mel Gorman , Alex Estrin , Eric Dumazet , Erez Shitrit , Sagi Grimberg , Haggai Eran , Shachar Raindel , Mike Marciniszyn , Tom Tucker , Chuck Lever Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2 RESEND] IB/Verbs: Use helpers to refine the checking on transport and link layer References: <5512CFB0.1050108@profitbricks.com> <1427378940.21101.100.camel@redhat.com> <55142DFD.2060100@profitbricks.com> <1427387258.21101.124.camel@redhat.com> <55143AAC.8040206@profitbricks.com> <20150326211334.GA3359@obsidianresearch.com> <5515284A.3030106@profitbricks.com> <20150327155530.GA21778@obsidianresearch.com> In-Reply-To: <20150327155530.GA21778@obsidianresearch.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 03/27/2015 04:55 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 10:52:10AM +0100, Michael Wang wrote: >> [snip] > So, in principle, testing the device should almost make sense. The > device is the container for things like PD's MR's and QP's and those > things can migrate between the ports freely, so all post must share > the same attributes for those items. > > However.. AFAIK, we can have RoCEE and IB ports on the same device - > which makes that whole concept seem sort of like nonsense.. > > Anyhow, I would discourage testing the device. Each site has to be > examined and determine if it working with a single port and really > needs a port attribute (which may be a device attribute today) or if > it is doing something device wide and is checking if all ports support > X. I prefer Doug's proposal that these attributes should be setup by vendor at very beginning, unless the attributes keep changing... > >> Let's discuss and figure out the right name in the thread of >> v2 patch set, I guess there will be a lot to be correct :-P > Well, this is actually a hard job. This isn't a mechanical clean up, > each site has to be inspected and understood before it can be > migrated to the correct API. I've send out the RFC patch set, let's see if it is possible to settle some thing done ;-) Regards, Michael Wang > > Jason