Re: [PATCH rdma-next 02/13] RDMA/core: add the UET GID types

[Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>]

On Thu, Oct 15, 2026 at 08:57:44AM -0700, Eric Davis wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2026 at 3:35 PM <sashiko-bot@kernel.org> wrote:
> > Sashiko AI review found 3 potential issue(s) to consider:
> 
> Disagree with all three and no change planned. None of these paths runs on
> a UET port.
> 
> A UET port's core_cap_flags are RDMA_CORE_CAP_PROT_UET_[UDP|IP] plus
> RDMA_CORE_CAP_ETH_AH. It has no IB_MAD, IB_CM, IB_SA or IB_MCAST bit.
> 
> > Does this explicitly fail Address Handle initialization for UET-only ports?
> 
> Yes, deliberately. ib_init_ah_attr_from_wc() is called by the MAD agent,
> the CM, mad_rmpp, and user_mad. These all need IB_MAD, so none of them
> sees a completion from a UET-only port. The check is a guard as an
> unconnected peer is named through an extended address handle (patch 5) or
> the job's address table (patch 7), never from a WC.

How much of this follows the work Sean did in the consortium? I
thought he had defined AHs?

> > Could this cause incoming UET packets to be incorrectly mapped to a RoCEv2
> > GID index, breaking the UET transport response?
> 
> On a port that runs both RoCE and UET the MAD traffic is RoCE, so mapping
> it to RoCEv2 is correct.

You will need seperate ROCE and UET ib_devices with the current state
of affairs, we don't support multi-protocol today.

Jason