From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Steve Wise Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] RDMA/CMA: fix iWARP adapter TCP port space usage Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 13:20:40 -0500 Message-ID: <4C225078.6050001@opengridcomputing.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-rdma-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Roland Dreier Cc: Bernard Metzler , "Tung, Chien Tin" , Jason Gunthorpe , "linux-rdma-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , linux-rdma-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Peter P Waskiewicz Jr List-Id: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org Roland Dreier wrote: > > iWARP is just another protocol on top of TCP - like iSCSI. There is > > no good reason to invent another TCP port maintainer per TCP user > > type trying to synchonize with the kernel if the resource is host > > global and already maintained by the kernel. > > I think the counter-argument to this is than an iWARP offload NIC is an > independent TCP stack and hence should not be tied into the host stack. > It's interesting that you bring up iSCSI -- as I understand things, > iSCSI offload HBAs are typically configured with their own IP, through a > separate mechanism. (The port collision problem is not likely to be hit > with iSCSI, since the HBA is an initiator and hence does only active > connections, and a 4-tuple collision between connections to the iSCSI > target is not likely and other host stack traffic is extremely unlikely) > > Roland, do you think the iSCSI approach is a "good design" for iWARP devices? -- 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