On 04/16/2015 07:21 PM, Tom Talpey wrote: > On 4/16/2015 11:22 AM, Michael Wang wrote: >> >> >> On 04/16/2015 04:31 PM, Hefty, Sean wrote: >>>>> 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. >> >> Got it, will be changed in next version :-) >> >> To be confirmed: >> PORT ASSIGNED >> rdma_init_qp_attr Y >> rdma_destroy_id unknown >> cma_listen_on_dev N >> cma_bind_loopback N >> rdma_listen N > > Why "N"? rdma_listen() can be constrained to a single port, right? > And even if wildcarded, it needs to act on multiple ports, which is > to say, it will fail only if no ports are eligible.
Yeah, it can or can't, maybe 'unknown' is better :-) Regards, Michael Wang > > Tom. > > >> rdma_connect Y >> rdma_accept Y >> rdma_reject Y >> rdma_disconnect Y >> ib_ucm_add_one N >> >> Is this list correct? >> >> Regards, >> Michael Wang >> >>> >>> - Sean >>> >> >> > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
