From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============8218382484122085675==" MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Walker, Benjamin Subject: Re: [SPDK] Comparing discovery log page to the spec definition Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2019 18:02:13 +0000 Message-ID: <94074bb174f4b214876ab9ae7af5e63e6e695fd2.camel@intel.com> In-Reply-To: AM5PR04MB318753A9D46A40B7D4688392ECAD0@AM5PR04MB3187.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com List-ID: To: spdk@lists.01.org --===============8218382484122085675== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, 2019-08-14 at 08:08 +0000, Limor Halutzi wrote: > Hi again, > = > I saw that the TSAS field, byte#1 (RDMA Provider Type - RDMA_PRTYPE) valu= e is > 0 (not specified). > We expect that this value will be 2 (Infiniband RoCEV2). > Everything is working properly and we succeeded to connect but I just wan= ted > to verify that the 'not specified' value is OK and supports Infiniband Ro= CEV2. The RDMA transport supports RoCEv2, iWARP, and Omnipath. Returning 0 is the safest choice. If we're able to add code to correctly detect between those = 3 we could return a more specific value. > = > = > Thanks, > Limor > ________________________________ > From: Michal BenHaim > Sent: Sunday, August 11, 2019 11:42 AM > To: Limor Halutzi > Subject: Fw: [SPDK] Comparing discovery log page to the spec definition > = > = > = > = > best regards, > = > Michal Ben Haim > = > = > = > ________________________________________ > From: Walker, Benjamin > Sent: Friday, August 9, 2019 7:26 PM > To: spdk(a)lists.01.org > Cc: Michal BenHaim > Subject: Re: [SPDK] Comparing discovery log page to the spec definition > = > On Wed, 2019-08-07 at 12:54 +0000, Limor Halutzi wrote: > > Hi Guys, > > = > > I am working on comparing the discovery log page to the spec and I noti= ced > > that there is a trello task on this issue (Audit and make fully spec > > compliant > > the implementation of the Discovery Log Page) and I have some questions: > > = > > = > > 1. TREQ (byte 03) - We don't need a secure session and in our system= this > > field is set to not specified (0). > > Do we need to change it to not required (2)? > = > I think we should change this to not required as you indicate, but what w= e're > returning seems technically correct. > = > > What is the different between these two options? > > 2. I compared the log page entry struct with the log page entry from= the > > spec and they are the same. > > In addition, I checked that the values are valid to my machine. > > What is required to close this task? > = > I moved it to closed. Thanks! > = > > Thanks, > > Limor > > = > > _______________________________________________ > > SPDK mailing list > > SPDK(a)lists.01.org > > https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/spdk > = > _______________________________________________ > SPDK mailing list > SPDK(a)lists.01.org > https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/spdk --===============8218382484122085675==--