On 04/16/2015 04:31 PM, Hefty, Sean wrote: >>> This is equivalent to today where the checks are per node rather than >>> per port. >>> >>> Should all checks here be port 1 based or only certain ones like listen >>> ? For example, in connect/reject/disconnect, don't we already have port >>> ? Guess this can be dealt with later as this is not a regression from >>> the current implementation. >> >> Yeah, these parts of cma may need more carve in future, like some new >> callback >> for different CM type as Sean suggested. >> >> Maybe directly using 1 could help to highlight the problem ;-) > > Only a few checks need to be per device. I think I pointed those out > previously. Testing should show anywhere that we miss fairly quickly, since > port would still be 0. For the checks that can be updated to be per port, I > would rather go ahead and convert them.
Got it, will be changed in next version :-) To be confirmed: PORT ASSIGNED rdma_init_qp_attr Y rdma_destroy_id unknown cma_listen_on_dev N cma_bind_loopback N rdma_listen N rdma_connect Y rdma_accept Y rdma_reject Y rdma_disconnect Y ib_ucm_add_one N Is this list correct? Regards, Michael Wang > > - Sean > -- 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