Hi Michael,
The spirit of this patch-set is great, but I think that we need to clarify some
concepts.
Since this will affect the whole patch-set, I am laying out my concerns here
instead.
A suggestion for the resulting management helpers is given below.
I believe the result would be much more c
> From: Michael Wang [mailto:yun.w...@profitbricks.com]
>
> Hi, Liran
>
> Thanks for the comment :-)
>
> On 04/22/2015 01:36 AM, Liran Liss wrote:
> [snip]
> >
> > (**) This has been extended to also encode the transport in the current
> code.
> > A
> From: Michael Wang [mailto:yun.w...@profitbricks.com]
> [snip]
> >
> > Depends on who is "we".
> > For ULPs, you are probably right.
> >
> > However, core services (e.g., mad management, CM, SA) do care about
> various details.
> > In some cases, where it doesn't matter, this code will use mana
> From: Hefty, Sean [mailto:sean.he...@intel.com]
[snip]
> > > So, I think that our "old-transport" below is just fine.
> > > No need to change it (and you aren't, since it is currently
> > > implemented
> > as a function).
> >
> > I think there is a need to change this. Encoding the transport in
> From: linux-rdma-ow...@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-rdma-
>
[snip]
> a/include/rdma/ib_verbs.h b/include/rdma/ib_verbs.h index
> 65994a1..d54f91e 100644
> --- a/include/rdma/ib_verbs.h
> +++ b/include/rdma/ib_verbs.h
> @@ -75,10 +75,13 @@ enum rdma_node_type { };
>
> enum rdma_transport_type
> From: linux-rdma-ow...@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-rdma-
>
> Add raw helpers:
> rdma_tech_ib
> rdma_tech_iboe
> rdma_tech_iwarp
> rdma_ib_or_iboe (transition, clean up later) To help us detect which
> technology the port supported.
>
Replace "rdma_tech_*" with "rdma_p
6 matches
Mail list logo
