On Wed, 2015-06-10 at 12:56 -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 02:37:26PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote: > > On Wed, 2015-06-10 at 06:30 +0000, Liran Liss wrote: > > > > From: Ira Weiny <ira.we...@intel.com> > > > > > > Hi Ira, > > > > > > OPA cannot impersonate IB; OPA node and link types have to be > > > designated as such. In terms of MAD processing flows, both > > > explicit (as in the handle_opa_smi() call below) and implicit code > > > paths (which share IB flows - there are several cases) must make > > > this distinction. > > > > As far as in the kernel is concerned, the individual capability bits > > are much more important. I would actually like to do away with the > > node_type variable from struct ib_device eventually. As for user > > space, > > All SMI code has different behavior if it is running on a switch or > HCA, so testing for 'switchyness' is very appropriate here.
Sure... > cap_is_switch_smi would be a nice refinement to let us drop nodetype. Exactly, we need a bit added to the immutable data bits, and a new cap_ helper, and then nodetype is ready to be retired. Add a bit, drop a u8 ;-) > I don't have a problem with sharing the IBA constant names for MAD > structures (like RDMA_NODE_IB_SWITCH) between IB and OPA code. They > already share the structure layouts/etc. > > Jason > -- > 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 -- Doug Ledford <dledf...@redhat.com> GPG KeyID: 0E572FDD
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
