> On Wed, Nov 27, 2024 at 07:46:39PM +, Long Li wrote:
> >
> > > > > I think Konstantin's suggestion makes sense, how about we do
> > > > > this (don't need to define netdev_is_slave(dev)):
> > > > >
> > > > > --- a/drivers/infiniband/core/roce_gid_mgmt.c
> > > > > +++ b/drivers/infiniband/core
> Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [PATCH rdma-next 1/1] RDMA/mana_ib: Set correct
> device into ib
>
> On Wed, Nov 27, 2024 at 07:46:39PM +, Long Li wrote:
> >
> > > > > I think Konstantin's suggestion makes sense, how about we do
> > > >
On Wed, Nov 27, 2024 at 07:46:39PM +, Long Li wrote:
>
> > > > I think Konstantin's suggestion makes sense, how about we do this
> > > > (don't need to define netdev_is_slave(dev)):
> > > >
> > > > --- a/drivers/infiniband/core/roce_gid_mgmt.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/infiniband/core/roce_gid_mgm
> > > I think Konstantin's suggestion makes sense, how about we do this
> > > (don't need to define netdev_is_slave(dev)):
> > >
> > > --- a/drivers/infiniband/core/roce_gid_mgmt.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/infiniband/core/roce_gid_mgmt.c
> > > @@ -161,7 +161,7 @@ is_eth_port_of_netdev_filter(struct ib
On Mon, Nov 25, 2024 at 03:56:01PM +, Parav Pandit wrote:
>
>
> > From: Long Li
> > Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2024 5:34 AM
> >
> > > >
> > > > Actually, another alternative solution for mana_ib is always set the
> > > > slave device, but in the GID mgmt code we need the following patch.
> From: Long Li
> Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2024 5:34 AM
>
> > >
> > > Actually, another alternative solution for mana_ib is always set the
> > > slave device, but in the GID mgmt code we need the following patch.
> > > The problem is that it may require testing/confirmation from other
> >
> >
> > Actually, another alternative solution for mana_ib is always set the
> > slave device, but in the GID mgmt code we need the following patch.
> > The problem is that it may require testing/confirmation from other ib
> > providers
> as in the worst case some GIDs will not be listed.
>
> is_
