Hi Or, I understand your point. Main reason for having netdev on cc is that I think adding softiwarp to the kernel is adding a service to the kernel network stack. If accepted, iWARP as a protocol would become a Linux kernel service, and it would directly make use of kernel TCP/IP services. That is different form all other rdma verbs providers, which offload the data path to private territory.
At the current point, maybe its reasonable to restrict detailed discussion to linux-rdma, if only issues related to the linux-rdma stack are discussed? I would be happy to keep netdev in the loop for patches and of course for any discussion touching softiwarp's interaction with network kernel services. Many thanks, Bernard. Or Gerlitz <ogerl...@mellanox.com> wrote on 06/19/2011 07:12:14 AM: > Or Gerlitz <ogerl...@mellanox.com> > 06/19/2011 07:12 AM > > To > > Bart Van Assche <bvanass...@acm.org>, Bernard Metzler <b...@zurich.ibm.com> > > cc > > Roland Dreier <rol...@purestorage.com>, <linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org> > > Subject > > Re: software iwarp stack update > > Bart Van Assche wrote: > > Roland Dreier <rol...@purestorage.com> wrote: > >> It does seem we are missing an IB_MANDATORY_FUNC > >> entry for modify_port in ib_device_check_mandatory; or on > >> the flip side we are missing a check of modify_port and a > >> -ENOSYS return... I guess modify_port does not really make > >> sense for iWARP so probably the second option is better. > > > > There seems to be disagreement about whether to return 0, -ENOSYS or > > -EOPNOTSUPP for not supported functionality. Does the patch below > make sense ? > > Note: I don't have all the hardware necessary to test the patch below. > > Bernard, the netdev guys have enough on their plate... what's the reason > we want this thread the be cross posted to both linux-rdma and netdev? > > Or. -- 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
