From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Roland Dreier Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] RDMA/CMA: fix iWARP adapter TCP port space usage Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 11:28:03 -0700 Message-ID: References: <4C225078.6050001@opengridcomputing.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4C225078.6050001-7bPotxP6k4+P2YhJcF5u+vpXobYPEAuW@public.gmane.org> (Steve Wise's message of "Wed, 23 Jun 2010 13:20:40 -0500") Sender: linux-rdma-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Steve Wise Cc: Bernard Metzler , "Tung, Chien Tin" , Jason Gunthorpe , "linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org" , linux-rdma-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Peter P Waskiewicz Jr List-Id: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org > Roland, do you think the iSCSI approach is a "good design" for iWARP > devices? Well, it's a different problem since as I said the port collision problem is a non-issue for iSCSI anyway. But yes having a separate interface to assign an iWARP IP address to an RNIC does seem to avoid the immediate problem. I actually don't know what the right answer is -- having a separate IP address for iWARP does seem to lead to having to duplicate everything for configuring it. (And this is the approach for the cxgb[34] iSCSI drivers, right?) On the other hand trying to hook offloaded iWARP into the normal stack does seem to lead to a mess. I see DaveM's point: TCP port space is just the beginning -- filtering, queueing, etc also have config that ultimately an offload device would want to hook too. Maybe the sanest out of a bad set of options would be to come up with a standard way to configure independent TCP/IP stacks that share a link. really, dunno. - R. -- Roland Dreier || For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html -- 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