Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 06:23:15PM -0500, Jeff Squyres wrote:
2. I am somewhat confused by the overloading of the term "transport".
It appears that a device will have
ibv_device.transport_type==IBV_TRANSPORT_IB for both IB and RDMAOE
devices. The only way to tell the difference is to examine the new
ibv_port_attr.transport field to see if it is RDMA_TRANSPORT_IB or
RDMA_TRANSPORT_RDMAOE.
I haven't seen these patches but this seems poor to me. I think any
app that isn't using rdmacm will need patching and support for RDMAOE
(certainly all mine will). libibverbs shouldn't overload the existing
transport_type checks for something that is not 100% compatible with
IB.
Good catch - I agree that the ABI should be 100% backward compatible,
and we will fix this.
We can add a sysfs option to query the transport type, or add another verb
Note that application does not need to query the transport type, but we
thought it can be good to know also from debug perspective.
Thus I think sysfs is the best place.
Opinions?
Tziporet
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
