Re: [PATCH] rdma cm + XRC

[frank zago <fzago-klaOcWyJdxkshyMvu7JE4pqQE7yCjDx5@public.gmane.org>]

On 08/10/2010 12:14 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 09:59:50AM -0700, Hefty, Sean wrote:
> 
>>> The general parameters would be the same as for RC. Should we create a new
>>> ai_flag ? or a new port space ?
>>
>> There's a ai_qp_type field available.  I think the RDMA TCP port
>> space would work.
> 
> Not sure the port space matters at all?
> 
> Is there anything additional CM information for XRC other than
> requesting an XRC QP type? (XRCSRQ or something?)

Creating a send or receive XRC QP is using a different API (ibv_create_qp vs
ibv_create_xrc_rcv_qp) so I used the max_send_wr capability attribute to
discriminate between both cases. That's the only visible change to the API.
On 7/30, I posted a patch to perftest rdmb_bw to show how it's used.

> 
>>> Is it really necessary to support rdma_getaddrinfo, rdma_create_ep and the
>>> new APIs ?
>>
>> I think so, yes.  At least XRC needs to be handled, even if some of
>> the calls just fail as unsupported.
> 
> I'd like to see a strong rational for leaving any of the new API
> unsupported for XRC - IMHO it should all be doable. The new API is
> supposed to be simplifying, we want people to use it..

No rational, besides that someone has to write some code :)
 
Regards,
  Frank.
--
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