From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: RDMA/CM and multiple QPs Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 06:14:07 -0700 Message-ID: <20150908131407.GB5316@infradead.org> References: <20150906064550.GA30683@infradead.org> <55EED54B.7090608@dev.mellanox.co.il> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <55EED54B.7090608-LDSdmyG8hGV8YrgS2mwiifqBs+8SCbDb@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-rdma-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Sagi Grimberg Cc: linux-rdma-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 03:32:11PM +0300, Sagi Grimberg wrote: > The CM is responsible of establishing an RDMA channel. What you are > referring to is a concept of a session. I'm not entirely sure how we can > fit a model where the CM establishes a multi-channel session as the > CM request contains a (single) source QPN. So there is a 1-1 > relationship between a cm_id and a queue-pair. The device handle depends > on the address resolution to the end-node. > > I assume we can think of some form of an rdma_session which will manage > multiple cm_id's (that belongs to a single address resolution), call > the ULP to allocate their corresponding queue-pairs and send a connect > request for each one. Such an rdma_session can verify the same ib_device > handle on all the cm_id's. But I'm not sure how such a concept would > impact on aspects such as event handling etc... What I'm more interested in is a way to tell the CM that I only want routes that are using this ib_device that I got from the first lookup as all others are useless for me. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html