On 2/4/2015 6:29 PM, ira.we...@intel.com wrote:
> From: Ira Weiny <ira.we...@intel.com>
>
> OPA MADs share a common header with IBTA MADs but with a different base
> version
> and an extended length. These "jumbo" MADs increase the performance of
> management traffic.
>
> Sharing a common header with IBTA MADs allows us to share most of the MAD
> processing code when dealing with OPA MADs in addition to supporting some IBTA
> MADs on OPA devices.
>
> Add a device capability flag to indicate OPA MAD support on the device.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ira Weiny <ira.we...@intel.com>
>
> ---
> include/rdma/ib_verbs.h | 5 +++++
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/include/rdma/ib_verbs.h b/include/rdma/ib_verbs.h
> index 3ab4033..2614233 100644
> --- a/include/rdma/ib_verbs.h
> +++ b/include/rdma/ib_verbs.h
> @@ -128,6 +128,10 @@ enum ib_device_cap_flags {
> IB_DEVICE_ON_DEMAND_PAGING = (1<<31),
> };
>
> +enum ib_device_cap_flags2 {
> + IB_DEVICE_OPA_MAD_SUPPORT = 1
> +};
> +
> enum ib_signature_prot_cap {
> IB_PROT_T10DIF_TYPE_1 = 1,
> IB_PROT_T10DIF_TYPE_2 = 1 << 1,
> @@ -210,6 +214,7 @@ struct ib_device_attr {
> int sig_prot_cap;
> int sig_guard_cap;
> struct ib_odp_caps odp_caps;
> + u64 device_cap_flags2;
> u32 max_mad_size;
> };
>
Why is OPA support determined via a device capability flag ? What are
the tradeoffs for doing it this way versus the other choices that have
been used in the past for other RDMA technologies like RoCE, iWARP,
usNIC, … ?
-- Hal
--
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
