From: Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>
Cc: Don Dutile <ddutile@redhat.com>,
Daniel Jurgens <danielj@mellanox.com>,
Mark Bloch <markb@mellanox.com>,
Doug Ledford <dledford@redhat.com>,
linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org, Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>,
stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH rdma-rc 1/2] IB/core: Only enforce security for InfiniBand
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 22:40:20 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20171121204020.GA18825@mtr-leonro.local> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20171121185744.GF18272@ziepe.ca>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1120 bytes --]
On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 11:57:44AM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 01:16:43PM -0500, Don Dutile wrote:
>
> > >>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)?
>
> A change like this would be almost transparent to most users. The cx3
> card in mixed mode will look like a mlx5 card does: two single port
> RDMA devices.
>
> I think only a minimal amount of stuff is actually shared between
> ports, and as cx5 already demonstrates there isn't really a notable
> downside to having two kernel RDMA devices.
CX4+ cards have completely different HW architecture in opposite to CX3,
and mlx5 implementation doesn't mean that your suggestion is doable for
mlx4. It worth to check it.
Thanks
>
> Jason
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-11-21 20:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20171121102618.31216-1-leon@kernel.org>
2017-11-21 10:26 ` [PATCH rdma-rc 1/2] IB/core: Only enforce security for InfiniBand Leon Romanovsky
2017-11-21 10:44 ` Mark Bloch
2017-11-21 13:22 ` Leon Romanovsky
2017-11-21 13:56 ` Mark Bloch
2017-11-21 15:14 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2017-11-21 15:33 ` Mark Bloch
2017-11-21 15:36 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2017-11-21 15:37 ` Daniel Jurgens
2017-11-21 16:04 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2017-11-21 16:34 ` Leon Romanovsky
2017-11-21 16:36 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2017-11-21 16:48 ` Leon Romanovsky
2017-11-21 17:10 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2017-11-21 18:16 ` Don Dutile
2017-11-21 18:57 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2017-11-21 20:40 ` Leon Romanovsky [this message]
2017-11-21 18:15 ` Don Dutile
2017-11-21 13:56 ` Daniel Jurgens
2017-11-22 16:49 ` Leon Romanovsky
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20171121204020.GA18825@mtr-leonro.local \
--to=leon@kernel.org \
--cc=danielj@mellanox.com \
--cc=ddutile@redhat.com \
--cc=dledford@redhat.com \
--cc=jgg@ziepe.ca \
--cc=linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=markb@mellanox.com \
--cc=paul@paul-moore.com \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox