On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 03:21:02PM +0200, Sagi Grimberg wrote:
This question is not directly related to this patch, but given that
this is a copy-paste from the qib driver I'll go ahead and take it
anyway. How does qib (and rvt now) do memory key invalidation? I didn't
see any reference to IB_WR_LOCAL_INV anywhere in the qib driver...
What am I missing?
ping?
In short, it doesn't look like qib or hfi1 support this.
Oh, I'm surprised to learn that. At least I see that
qib is not exposing IB_DEVICE_MEM_MGT_EXTENSIONS. But whats
the point in doing something with a IB_WR_REG_MR at all?
Given that this is not supported anyway, why does this patch
exist?
This patch exists to provide parity for what is in qib. Should we not have
it? If not, why do we have:
commit 38071a461f0a ("IB/qib: Support the new memory registration API")
That doesn't mean it can't be added to rdmavt as a future enhancement
though if there is a need.
Well, given that we're trying to consolidate on post send registration
interface it's kind of a must I'd say.
Are you asking because soft-roce will need it?
I was asking in general, but in specific soft-roce as a consumer will
need to support that yes.
I think it makes sense to revisit when soft-roce comes in, since qib/hfi do
not need IB_WR_LOCAL_INV.
-Denny
--
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
