RE: [RFC PATCH 00/13] Ultra Ethernet driver introduction

Sean Hefty
2025-03-20T20:05:08Z

> > As the existing rdma subsystem doesn't seems to support the above use
> > case yet
>
> Why would you say that? If EFA needs SRD and RDM objects in RDMA they
> can create them, it is not a big issue. To my knowledge they haven't asked for
> them.

When looking at how to integrate UET support into verbs, there were changes relevant to this discussion that I found needed.

1. Allow an RDMA device to indicate that it supports multiple transports, separated per port.
2. Specify the QP type separate from the protocol.
3. Define a reliable, unconnected QP type.

Lin might be referring to 2 (assuming 3 is resolved).

These are straightforward to address. I don't think we'd end up with a protocol object (e.g. SRD), versus it just being an attribute of 3 (e.g. RDM QP).

EFA defined a custom QP type with a single protocol, so they didn't try to standardize this. However, it could fit into the above model.

- Sean