RE: [PATCH V3 1/5] RDMA/core: Transport-independent access flags

Steve Wise
2015-07-14T19:25:50Z

> >>
> >> I'm sorry Steve for leading you down the wrong path with these flags,
> >> I did not fully realize exactly what the iWarp difference was at the
> >> start :(
> >>
> >> Jason
> >
> >
> > No problem. I'll work on iSER target FRMRs and repost the iSER series.
> >
> > Sagi, right now isert only uses FRMRs along with signature mrs. I'll need to separate the two, I think. Does that sound right?
>
> Yea.
>
> Given that FRWR takes extra HW (and memory) resources, it
> should probably be:
>
> if (signature support || iwarp)
> use FRMR

Currently the code does:

if (device_supports_fastreg && device_supports_signature)
use FRMR
else
use DMAMR

Shouldn't we just recode it this way?

if (device_supports_fastreg)
use FRMR
else
use DMAMR

The benefit is that we don't have to check for iWARP protocol in the ULP. The side effect is, I think, mlx4 will now use FRMR
instead of DMAMR for reads/writes since it doesn't support signature handover.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in