On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 11:25:46AM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> I like this, my only comment is we should have a rdma_cap for this
> behavior, rdma_cap_needs_rdma_read_mr(pd) or something?
Yes, that's better than checking the protocol.
> > + if (!(dev->device_cap_flags &
> > IB_DEVICE_MEM_MGT_EXTENSIONS)) {
>
> Lets enforce this in the core, if rdma_cap_needs_rdma_read_mr is set
> the the device must also set IB_DEVICE_MEM_MGT_EXTENSIONS, check at
> device creation time.
The iWarp verbs spec requires them to be supported, so that should not
be an issue.
> > + } else if (rdma_ib_or_roce(dev, newxprt->sc_cm_id->port_num)) {
> > + /*
> > + * For IB or RoCE life is easy, no unsafe write access is
> > + * required and multiple SGEs are supported, so we don't need
> > + * to use MRs.
> > + */
> > + newxprt->sc_reader = rdma_read_chunk_lcl;
> > + } else {
> > + /*
> > + * Neither iWarp nor IB-ish, we're out of luck.
> > + */
> > goto errout;
>
> No need for the else, !rdma_cap_needs_rdma_read_mr means pd->local_dma_lkey
> is okay
> to use.
What would happen if someone tried to use NFS on usnic without this?
--
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
