From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Don Dutile Subject: Re: [PATCH rdma-rc 1/2] IB/core: Only enforce security for InfiniBand Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 13:16:43 -0500 Message-ID: References: <20171121102618.31216-2-leon@kernel.org> <4f5268b5-e5b6-a7d9-2096-70b4ae8facaf@mellanox.com> <20171121132215.GU18825@mtr-leonro.local> <9bb92ec4-d29f-55b7-d3ba-33bfe451ea6c@mellanox.com> <20171121151409.GA29826@mellanox.com> <3eff140b-8f0f-1c4f-07b7-9dec46090a1e@mellanox.com> <410e7b54-02f5-849c-e3ad-56cc61f66647@mellanox.com> <20171121160442.GB18272@ziepe.ca> <20171121163454.GW18825@mtr-leonro.local> <20171121163648.GC18272@ziepe.ca> <20171121164802.GY18825@mtr-leonro.local> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20171121164802.GY18825@mtr-leonro.local> Sender: stable-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Leon Romanovsky , Jason Gunthorpe Cc: Daniel Jurgens , Mark Bloch , Doug Ledford , linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org, Paul Moore , stable@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org On 11/21/2017 11:48 AM, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 09:36:48AM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 06:34:54PM +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote: >>> On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 09:04:42AM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: >>>> On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 09:37:27AM -0600, Daniel Jurgens wrote: >>>> >>>>> The only warning that would make sense is if the mixed ports aren't >>>>> all IB or RoCE. As you note, CX-3 can mix those two, we don't want to >>>>> see warnings about that. >>>> >>>> I would really like to see cx3 be changed to not do that, then we >>>> could finalize this issue upstream: All device ports must be the same >>>> protocol. >>> >>> I don't see the point of such artificial limitation, the users who >>> brought CX-3 have option to work in mixed mode and IMHO it is not right >>> to deprecate such ability just because it is hard for us to code for it. >> >> I don't really think it is really too user visible.. Only the device >> and port number change, but only if running in mixed mode. > > Ahh, correct me if I'm wrong, you are proposing to split mlx4_ib devices > to two devices once it is configured in mixed mode, so everyone will > have one port only. Did I understand you correctly? > Which would require splitting resources that are shared now? other splitting issue(s)? >> >> It is not just 'hard for us' it is impossible to reconcile the >> differences between ports when enforcing device level things. >> >> This keeps coming up again and again.. >> >> Jason